


Edward F. GruverCo. 
Boole Binders 

Washington, D. C. 





I 

















\ 

















CONTROVERSY 


BETWEEN 


REV. MESSRS. HUGHES AND BRECKENRIDGE, 


ON THE SUBJECT 


“IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION 
OF CHRIST 1” 



CAREFULLY REVISED. 




ISAAC BIRD, 214 MARKET STREET. 















' 












-v..', ■ * 
















■ 


\ 









v, *' 










" v f 














: ♦ 


















r 









t 




% 





wY-V * v 


i»> C C.. ••$**#. -/. 




r 


f 


1 


klmi 












* 




* 




















# 


\i 














l 

' ? i 



1 








K 





CJ 


NOTE. 


The following correspondence and controversy have been exten- 
sively published in the religious newspapers of the day, but as it is 
believed that many persons wish to possess it in a form more conve- 
nient for reference and preservation, this edition is given to the public, 
with a hope that it will meet with extensive patronage. The whole is 
copied from the “ The Presbyterian,” in which it originallyappeared, 
and the public is assured that pains have been taken to make it an 
exact copy, without alteration of any kind. 





















* 








« 

V. 








V 







% 





. 





























‘r 














** 





„ *\f ’ • 




/ f . ' ■ 

- 






- 










^ V 


V>'’ 4. 














; 







1 




























• : . 

H<k •* r 












* . 1 

























4 


•fv 






f 










' / 


• • * <' * 



















r V** ’ 






CONTROVERSY. 


PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 

To the Rev . John Breckenridge , 

Rev. Sir, — I have perused your article on the Roman Catholic con- 
troversy published in the Christian Advocate, and feel that you have 
neither been just nor ingenuous in your observations. I am the more 
surprised at this because those who know you ascribe to you many 
of those qualities of mind and feeling, which constitute or adorn the 
scholar and the gentleman. 

Throughout the article you seem to regret that your antagonist is 
not an “ accredited” or responsible authority on the subject ; and 
hence you say, “ There are Priests and Bishops, &c. We are pre- 
pared to meet any of them, on the broad field of this important and 
vital discussion ; and hereby make this disposition known.” 

Now, sir, I am equally ready to accept this challenge ; let it only 
be conducted in a spirit of Christian charity, and of sincere inquiry 
after truth. Of course it will be necessary to define certain rules and 
conditions by which we may understand ourselves and each other, in 
the discussion of the question. 

I hope you will find in the publicity of your challenge a sufficient 
apology for the liberty I take in addressing you. I shall be ready to 
receive any communication you may make on this subject, and shall 
be accommodating as to the time, place, manner, and circumstance, 
of bringing this topic fairly before the public. 

Yours, very respectfully, 

John Hughes. 

Oct. 3d, 1832. 


Philadelphia, Oct. 13th, 1832. 

To the Rev. John Hughes , 

Sir, — Your communication of the third instant was duly received; 
and I have used the earliest opportunity, which my present unsettled 
life allowed me, in giving the necessary attention to its contents. 

I am gratified to find that in your estimate of my character you dif- 
fer from “ those who know me.” If, as you concede, they are pleased 
to ascribe to me “ many of those qualities of mind and feeling which 
constitute or adorn the scholar or the gentleman,” I leave you to deter- 
mine whether I ought to be more gratified by their judgment, or dis- 
tressed at yours. 

I confess, however, that I am not a little surprised to find you 
speaking of my letter published in the Christian Advocate on the Ro- 
man Catholic controversy, as embracing an original challenge, while 


6 


CONTROVERSY. 


charging upon me the want of ingenuousness. By a reference to the 
introduction and close of that publication, you will find that this con- 
troversy was forced upon me : and that my reply did not originate the 
discussion, or embrace a challenge, but attempted to transfer a chal- 
lenge already given to more equal and elevated ground, and to iden- 
tify the investigation with the best lights and sanctioned defenders of 
your faith. 

And now, sir, allow me to say, that it gives me hearty pleasure to 
find you disposed, in a manly form, to meet the question at issue be- 
tween Protestants and Romanists ; while at the same time I fully re- 
spond to the wish expressed in your letter, that any controversy which 
may hereafter be undertaken “may be conducted in a spirit of Chris- 
tian charity, and a sincere inquiry after truth.” 

As what you have been pleased to style my challenge was a writ-, 
ten reply to a previous communication, which was also written, so a 
written answer from an accredited respondent was requested. The 
obvious course therefore for you to pursue, in meeting the spirit of 
this requirement, is to respond from the press, to the contents of my 
letter, which is now widely circulated through the country. And I, 
in my place, shall, by the grace of God, stand prepared to give your 
communications prompt and appropriate attention. 

The terms in which you speak of arrangements for the discussion, 
“ defining rules and conditions,” are not explicit. If the above sug- 
gestion, therefore, does not meet your wishes, I shall be gratified to 
have them more fully expressed, as to the best method of using the 
press, to reach the desired end. And that you may be assured of my 
sincerity, and entire readiness to investigate this great and vital sub- 
ject, I use this occasion to say, that there are several ministers of the 
Gospel in this city and vicinity, who stand prepared with me to meet 
yourself, and any number of your clergy that may be disposed to 
unite with you, in any way most agreeable to yourselves, that is con- 
sistent with decorum, and the grave and sacred nature of the themes. 

I am yours, very respectfully,. 

John Breckenridge. 


The following rules were next sent to the Rev. Mr. Breckenridge, 
by the Rev. Mr. Hughes. 

Whereas, the undersigned have agreed to enter on an amicable dis- 
cussion of the great points of Religious Controversy between Catholics 
and Protestants, — and whereas such discussions cannot prove either 
profitable to the parties concerned, or edifying to the public at large, 
unless they are conducted in the language of decorum, and in a spirit 
of Christian politeness, — and whereas this object is best attained by 
adherence to certain rules and conditions mutually agreed to, there 
fore, the following shall be the rules of said discussion, to the ob- 
servance of which each of the parties hereby binds himself. 

1st. We agree respectively to adhere strictly to the subject of dis 
cussion, for the time being : and to admit no second question until 
the first shall have been exhausted. 


PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 7 

2d. Each of the parties shall be the accredited interpreter of his 
own religion. And neither shall have the right to ascribe to his ad- 
versary doctrines, or explanations of doctrines, which the latter dis- 
claims. 

3d. The parties shall write and publish alternately in the same 
paper, never allowing any communication to exceed two columns. 

4th. The controversy shall commence by a discussion of the rule 
of faith, to prevent it from being interminable and useless. 

Signed, John Hughes. 

Oct. 23d, 1832. 


Philadelphia, Nov. 7th, 1832. 


The Rev. John Hughes , 

Sir, — I received by the hand of your friend on the 26th ultimo, a 
series of rules proposed by you as the basis of “ an amicable discus- 
sion of the great points of religious controversy between (Roman) 
Catholics and Protestants.” When you called upon me yesterday, 

I informed you that I preferred to settled the preliminaries of the pro- 
posed discussion, in writing ; and that although my answer to your 
proposals had been delayed by my absence from town, as well as 
other causes beyond my control ; yet it was in readiness to be sent, 
needing transcription only. In the extended conversation which was 
at your particular request then entered into, my objections to your 
rules were stated at large. I need not now repeat more than the sub- 
stance of what was communicated then : viz. — 1. Your proposals are 
entirely silent as to any rejoinder to my letter in the Christian Advo- 
cate, though in that you find the avowed reason of addressing me on 
this subject, and though it contains a number of objections to your 
system of faith and morals, to which answers are requested. 2. The 
manner in which you propose to conduct the discussion (rule 3d) 
seems very insufficient, breaking up, as it must do, into so many frac- 
tions every leading question, and requiring so much time to reach any 
adequate result. Besides, you are local , and may be always at hand 
to attend upon the continually recurring details of a controversy, carried 
on in the columns of a daily paper, for such you seemed, in your conver- 
sation yesterday, to prefer. But my present pursuits (I will not say that 
they were known to you in making out this rule) lead me to every 
part of our country, and frequently after very short notice. 3. Some 
of the rules are unfair. I speak not of your intention, but of their 
tendency. See, for example, rule second. This rule will put it in 
your power, by a forced construction, to suspend all argument on any 
question by a private explanation or special disclaimer. The sym- 
bols, decrees, bulls, and approved writers of the Church of Rome 
are now before the world, and many of them have been extant for 
ages. The distinguishing doctrines of the Reformation and the stan- 
dards of the Presbyterian Church, have also been fully published to 
mankind. While due weight should be conceded to our respective 
explanations, yet the discussion of these doctrines must proceed on 
the principles of honest interpretation. I feel the more constrained to 


8 


CONTROVERSY. 


be explicit here, because you charge me with being both unjust and dis 
ingenuous in the statements of my published letter, though they are all 
founded in acknowledged facts, and most of them on the authority of 
your standing symbols or accredited writers. I must also add that the 
explanations of this rule given by you yesterday were not satisfactory. 
Again, the 4th rule, as interpreted by you yesterday, would appear 
to intimate that our discussion must stop if we cannot agree on what 
is the rule of faith. The tendency then will be to narrow the argu- 
ment to this single question. For it is not very probable, however 
others may be affected by our controversy, that either of us will be 
convinced by the other. 

In the deliberate review of these rules, my conclusion, as communi- 
cated to you verbally in our recent interview, is, that your alternative 
properly is, either to an.swer my published letter, or to meet me in -a 
public oral discussion of all the leading subjects on which we differ. 

You have, however, declined to adopt either of these methods ; and 
you assume the right to choose the manner of conducting the contro- 
versy, upon the ground that the challenge came from me. This I 
disclaim in the sense in which you use it ; and refer you for explana- 
tion to my former letter. Yet that you may have no just cause for 
attributing to me the failure of the proposed discussion, I hereby agree 
to adopt the preample, with the 1st, 3d, and 4th rules — provided, 1. 
That after the ride of faith shall have been fairly and fully discussed, 
other topics, to be agreed on hereafter, be taken up in order. 2. That 
if either party be necessarily hindered by sickness or inevitable calls 
to be absent, the discussion shall for the time, upon due notice being 
giyen, be suspended ; and 3. That the paper called “ The Presbyte- 
rian,” published in this city, be the medium of communication with 
the public. 

It is my expectation, Providence permitting, to be stationary, either 
in Philadelphia or New York, for some months after the first of De- 
cember. In the interval, though several short journeys will be neces- 
sary, not only in the discharge of my official duties, but also to pre- 
vent the interruption of the proposed discussion from that quarter, yet 
any communication from you will receive the earliest possible atten- 
tion. I remain, sir, your ob’t servant, 

John Breckenridge. 


Nov.*12th, 1832. 

To the Rev. John Breckenridge , 

Sir, — In your letter of the 7th inst. you have stated at length your 
ideas on the preliminaries of the controversy to which you had chal- 
lenged the “ Priests and Bishops” of the Catholic Church. I shall 
briefly notice in order all those parts of your letter that seem to re- 
quire attention. 

You begin by setting forth that I should issue a rejoinder to your 
letter. To this I reply that the challenge is general , covering the 
whole of the disputed ground, and consequently an acceptance of it 
requires that we should commence with the beginning. Secondly, you 
object to the manner of conducting it, (as indicated in rule 3d,) and 


PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 


9 


hint, that as I am “ local,” and you obliged to travel, this rule would 
give me decided advantage. Now so far as this rule restricts us to 
two columns and alternate communication, I hereby agree to withdraw 
it ; — leaving you free on that subject. — But with regard to your “ pre- 
sent pursuits,” I am surprised that you allude to them, since you 
know that they are precisely the same as when you published your 
challenge. 

You say the 2d rule is unfair. This must be owing to your mis- 
apprehension of its meaning. I will submit another in its stead, at the 
close of this letter, in which I trust you will find nothing “ unfair.” 

Rule 4th, you have adopted with a provision to which I agree. 
Your second provision had reference to that part of the 3d rule, which 
you objected to, and which I have agreed to withdraw. 

The only difficulty that remains, has reference to the medium 
of communication with the public. I cannot consent to its being “the 
paper called the Presbyterian.” If we are to be judged by the public, 
it must be by the public generally, and not by a sectarian fragment of 
the community — which is itself a party in the controversy. If I agreed 
to that provision, what would be my situation ? Why, I should have 
a Presbyterian antagonist, Presbyterian judges, and receive my license 
to publish, in every case, at the hand of a Presbyterian editor ! This 
sir, is asking too much : — and is not in good keeping with that cou- 
rage which prompted you to challenge “ Priests and Bishops” to the 
discussion of these vital points, before the public. 

Upon a review of your letter and my own, I find that we are agreed 
upon the preamble and the first rule without amendment. Let the 
second be expressed as follows : 

“ Rule 2. The questions shall be confined to those points of doc- 
trine and morals which are admitted by the parties, or found in the 
Symbols, Decrees, Bulls, Catechisms, approved writers, Standards, and 
Confessions of Faith of the churches to which the parties respectively 
belong. And such points shall in all cases be stated in the precise 
words or literal translation of the document from which they are ex- 
tracted, and the reference given.” 

If you agree to this, and will adopt the natural, obvious, and impar- 
tial medium of a public newspaper — then am I ready to answer your 
challenge. If you prefer an oral discussion under the guidance of 
these rules, let it be in the presence of twelve enlightened gentlemen, 
neither Catholics nor Presbyterians — and again I am ready. But I can- 
not consent to exhibit myself as a theological gladiator for the amuse- 
ment of an idle, promiscuous, curious multitude. 

This, sir, is my last private communication on the subject. I shall 
await your decision on this letter. If you decline every thing I have 
proposed, then it strikes me that consistency and candour will suggest 
to you the propriety of offering a public apology for your challenge ; 
at least some explanation of the private circumstances which tempted 
you to publish it, and to wear laurels without the trouble of deserving 
them. Yours, very respectfully, 

John Hushes* 


10 


CONTROVERSY. 


Philadelphia, Dec. 3d, 1832. 

To the Rev. John Hughes. 

Sir, — As I intimated to you in my last communication, I hope to 
be located in this city or New York for the chief part of the winter, 
and to enjoy sufficient rest to give you some attention. Having re- 
turned home on the evening of Nov. 29th, I now send my answer to 
your letter of Nov. the 12th. 

If the cause you advocate is to be measured by the spirit of your 
reply, then it is still worse than I had even supposed it. The dignity 
and Christian decorum with which you professed yourself desirous 
of conducting the proposed controversy, have, I regret to say, strangely 
disappeared in the progress of our preliminary correspondence, giving 
place to severe invective, ungenerous taunts, and bad temper. If I 
patiently lend myself to these uses, the public will at least not think 
me aspiring ; and the laurels which you imagine me so desirous of 
possessing, without having won, will scarcely be worth wearing. But 
indeed, sir, you mistake me in supposing that I wish to wear laurels. 
I desire victory for the truth of God, and the crown for Him whose right 
it is to rule — and whose prerogative has been usurped by him “ who, 
seated as God, in the temple of God, exalteth himself above all that 
is called God.” — As this will probably be my last communication to 
you in this way, it is perhaps my duty once more explicitly to state 
the grounds on which we respectively stand in the matter now at issue 
between us. 

Some two years since, (while a resident in Baltimore,) I was singled 
out, without provocation, by one of your leading laymen, and re- 
quired to write a reply to his strictures on a Protestant work, with 
the alternative of appearing to an esteemed member of the church of 
which I was pastor (who had been perplexed by his subtlety, and 
was referred to me for a reply) to be unable to defend our avowed 
faith. I chose to reply in writing, and at the close, called for a writ- 
ten rejoinder to a number of objections stated in the reply; and insisted 
on one from a responsible author — stating my readiness at the same 
time, in view of these “ objections,” to meet such a person on the 
whole field of controversy between Roman Catholics and Protestants. 
In the autumn of this year I published that letter — impelled to it in 
part by the frequent, and sometimes insolent, attacks that were made 
upon the Protestant churches — and in part by the very unwarrantable 
course pursued at the consecration of the house of worship in which 
you officiate. You professed to believe yourself (among others) 
challenged by me originally in this publication ; and you take advan- 
tage of that assumption to fix the terms, according to which, and 
which alone, the discussion must be conducted. I proposed to you 
the obvious and ordinary course, at once the most refined and best 
adapted to make permanent and wide impressions on the public 
mind — that you should reply to my letter in a connected form, from 
the press — promising to write again in answer when necessary. This 
you entirely and repeatedly declined, for reasons whose weight an 
impartial community will not find it difficult to estimate. I offered 
you the option of a public oral discussion. From this also you retreat 


PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 1 1 

—and urge in their stead the use of the daily political press — and 
yet you object, to oral discussion on the ground that you “ cannot 
consent to exhibit yourself as a theological gladiator, for the amuse- 
ment of an idle , promiscuous , curious multitude .” How you can 
see so much unsuitableness in one of these forms, and none in the 
other, I am at a loss to discover. In view of your unmoved deter- 
mination to proceed in your own way, I proposed the pages of a 
weekly religious paper — and having no connexion with your papers, 
I did all I could, offered one of ours, expecting you to reciprocate the 
arrangement. I was led to this course the more by the conver- 
sation which you held with the assistant secretary in our office be- 
fore my arrival, and by the communications which passed between 
us, on this subject. — The paragraph, therefore, in which you resent 
my offer of “ The Presbyterian,” is truly surprising to me, being, as 
I recollect, wholly at variance with the spirit manifested by you in our 
interview ! Did you not then entertain the idea that the religious pe- 
riodical presses of our respective denominations, might be properly 
and effectually used, if they could be obtained, to carry on this inves- 
tigation before the public ? And yet now, when the idea is matured, 
you charge me with dishonourable proposals ! Your proposition to 
meet me before twelve gentlemen is quite amusing ; especially in 
view of your desire to use a daily paper on account of its publicity. 

You say “ I am surprised that you allude to your present pursuits, 
since you know that they are precisely the same as when you pub- 
lished your challenge .” Now, if when I published my letter, I had 
proposed, as my plan of controversy, alternate pieces in a daily paper , 
and then when challenged by you on that plan, plead as a reason for 
declining it, my present pursuits though still the same, there would 
have been reason in your remark ; but the case is this, you know now, 
if not before, that my pursuits prevent me from being Ion g local; when 
therefore you propose and insist on a plan not only puerile, but which 
you know I could not adopt, is it I, or you, who shrink from the manly 
meeting of the question ? 

Still more, your posture as to my published letter, gives you no ex- 
clusive right above me to decide on the method of discussion, it being 
only a transfer to another person of a controversy which I did not 
originate. And still more, while my letter was in progress through 
the press, and (as I think) that point which contained “ the challenge,” 
was not yet published, you did attack Protestant ministers in a daily 
paper of this city, in a most unwarrantable and injurious manner. 

As to the rule substituted by you for rule 2d, to which I had ob- 
jected, I still decline it. It is both unusual and uncandid to propose 
it in the form and terms which you use. I wish to be fair but free 
in my argument, and extend to you the same right. If we misinter- 
pret, or misquote, or bring bad authority, let it be shown in the dis- 
cussion ; it will injure only him who does it. 

And now, sir, this is also my last private communication in this 
way. I have therefore to say in conclusion, if you will secure a 
weekly Roman Catholic paper, as I have the Protestant paper already 
named by me, I will agree to write and publish, simultaneously, in 
alternate weeks, with you, our respective pieces, until we have done ; 
or if you can obtain the use, week after week, of some respectable 


12 


CONTROVERSY. 


paper devoted to religion and literature, which is neither Roman Ca 
tholic nor Presbyterian, I will promptly acquiesce. In the event of 
your accepting this last offer, I am prepared to have a personal inter 
view with you, to settle the remaining particulars of the arrangement, 
it being understood, that I still agree to your rules, as qualified by 
this and my previous letter. If, however, you decline this, having 
declined the fair and scholar-like method of a connected answer from 
the press ; having declined a public and oral discussion ; and having 
intrenched yourself in the columns of a daily political paper, which 
can never afford room for a full discussion, is no fit place for such a 
discussion, and is a plan, for any length of time, to your knowledge, 
incompatible with my “ present pursuits,” 1 shall feel called on in 
duty, as well as justified in right, to publish this correspondence, and 
to begin a series of letters through the press, to the public, on the 
subjects which divide Protestants from Roman Catholics. When you 
demand an apology, you forget the age and the land in which we live. 
My “ apology” for writing and publishing my letter, so far as not al- 
ready given, shall, with God’s help, be seen in a public vindication of 
divine truth, and of the rights of man, against a system, which, in my 
humble judgment, is at war with both. 

I remain your obedient servant, 

John Breckenridge. 


Philadelphia, Dec. 4th, 1832. 

To the Rev. John Breckenridge. 

Sir, — The object of the present letter is to intimate before you com- 
mence the publication of our correspondence, that I agree to the pro- 
posals you have made , for the purpose of bringing the disputed 
ground of controversy betiveen Catholics and Presbyterians fairly 
before the public. 

In your letter of yesterday, you allude to the offer you had made 
of the columns of “ The Presbyterian,” and to my having declined 
it, in a tone of triumph, which my reasons for declining were somewhat 
calculated to subdue. However, you are pleased to overlook those 
reasons ; and since you decline every mode suggested by me, I will 
even meet you in your own proposals — and hereby signify my accept- 
ance of the same. 

Of course “ The Presbyterian” will continue to publish until one or 
the other of us think proper to decline the contest. I, on my part, 
shall have the whole republished in one of our papers, so that Ca- 
tholics may receive the enlightenment of your arguments. 

I must, however, enter my protest against your rejection of the 2d 
rule, as explained in my last lettei. The “ mens conscia recti” has 
nothing to dread from its operation. 

Now, sir, you may proceed with the pub cation of our correspond- 
ence ; and as soon as it shall have appeared, I will open the contro- 
versy, by addressing a letter to you through the columns of “ The 
Presbyterian,” on the “ Rule of Faith,” as already agreed upon. 

Yours, very respectfully, 

John Hughes. 


PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 


13 


Philadelphia, Dec. 6, 1832. 

To the Rev. John Hughes. 

Sir, — I am truly gratified that we can so far agree, at last, as to have 
the prospect of beginning promptly the proposed discussion. In my 
last letter, I suggested a personal interview, in order to settle some of 
the details of the controversy — such as the question to be investigated 
— the order — the quantity of matter from week to week, &c’. &c. It is 
understood, of course, that the particular paper furnished on your part 
is regularly pledged to reciprocate the arrangement made by “ The Pres- 
byterian,” in a weekly republication. My determination to publish 
our correspondence was suspended upon the event of your declining 
the terms offered to you in my last letter. I am pleased, however, 
that you consent to the publication — as the letters themselves will 
best explain the nature and origin of the pending controversy. 

I propose in fine an interview to-morrow morning, in the presence 
of two mutual friends, if you please, at such time as may be most 
convenient to yourself. 

I am your obedient servant, 

John Breckenridge. 


To the Rev. John Breckenridge. 

Rev. Sir, — I regret that it was not in my power to see you, on the 
day proposed in your.last letter, for the purpose of arranging those 
particulars to which you very properly allude. 

If it meet your views, I shall be very happy to see you, on Mon- 
day at 10 o’clock, A. M., with any gentleman you may think proper 
to bring, at my dwelling adjoining St. John’s church. If the hour or 
place be inconvenient, you may mention any other, and I shall make 
it convenient to attend. But sometime on Monday will suit me best, 
as I shall be obliged to go out of town next week, and shall start pro- 
bably on Tuesday morning. 

Yours, very respectfully, 

John Hughes. 

Dec. 8th, 1832. 


The proposed meeting took place, when the following agreement 
was made between the parties. 

The undersigned, agreeing to have an amicable discussion of the 
great points of religious controversy between Protestants and Roman 
Catholics, do hereby bind themselves to the observance of the follow- 
ing rules : 

1. The parties shall write and publish alternately, in the weekly 
religious papers called “ The Presbyterian,” and a Roman Catholic 
paper to be furnished by the first of January : it being understood that 
the communications shall be published after the following plan. One 
party opening, the first week ; the other party replying the next 


14 


CONTROVERSY. 


week : and every -piece to be republished in the immediately succeed- 
ing number of the Roman Catholic paper. The communications not 
to exceed four columns of “ The Presbyterian,” nor to continue be- 
yond six months, without consent of parties. 

2. The parties agree that there is an infallible rule of faith, estab- 
lished by Christ, to guide us in matters of religion, for the purpose 
of determining disputes in the Church of Christ. 

3. They moreover agree that after giving their views of the rule of 
faith, they will proceed to discuss the question, “ Is the Protestant 
religion the religion of Christ ?” 

4. The parties agree respectively to adhere strictly to the subject of 
discussion, for the time being ; and to admit no second question until 
the first shall have been exhausted. Each party shall be the judge 
when he is done with a subject, and shall be at liberty to occupy his 
time with a second subject, when he is done with the first; leaving 
to the other party the liberty of continuing to review the abandoned 
topic, as long as he shall choose ; subject, however, to be answered 
if he introduce new matter. 

5. Mr. Hughes to open the discussion, and Mr. Breckenridge to 
follow, according to the dictates of his own judgment. 

John Hughes. 

John Breckenridge. 

Dec. 14th, 1832. 


Philadelphia, Dec. 26th, 1832. 

The Rev. John Breckenridge. 

Dear Sir, — In the correspondence that has taken place between us, 
you must have perceived that I left several topics unanswered, inas- 
much as they had no immediate bearing on the arrangements of the 
rules by which the controversy was to be conducted. On those 
topics I will now make a few observations. 

In your letter of the third inst. you give a statement of the facts 
connected with the origin of this discussion, which I am not disposed 
to call into question, because, even admitting them, they do not sus- 
tain the conclusion which you have endeavoured to build upon them. 
Now the only portion of the statement, with which I am concerned, 
is the fact that in the “ Christian Advocate,” for August and Septem- 
ber of this year, you published a letter headedf Roman Catholic 
Controversy,” which on perusal I found to coiMlh charges, which if 
they were true, would render our religion an object of horror to all 
good men.— For example, you stated on the authority of Usher and 
St. Thomas Aquinas, that according to our brief, images representing 
Christ are to be adored as Christ himself. After having made this 
statement and given those names to support it, you ask, “ What is 
this ? Is it not divine worship of idols or images — i. e. idolatry sanc- 
tioned by standing authors, and ordered by the great accredited coun- 
cil of Trent ?” 

Who this Usher is, from whom you quote, I am at a loss to conjec- 
ture. There is an author of that name, but he does not possess much 
authority with Catholics, for the reason that he happens to have been 


PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 


15 


a Protestant Archbishop. But no matter for this testimony : the main 
point is that you, with your proper signature, charge upon Catholics 
that they are idolaters, by doctrine and authority. 

You next charge upon them what you call “ legalized immoralities,” 
and designate the doctrine of indulgences as “ a bundle of licenses to 
sin, and making merchandise of souls.” You even go into the detail 
of this traffic, and tell us the scale of prices on which crime was gra- 
duated — “ for a layman murdering a layman, about 7s. 6d ; for killing 
a father, mother, wife or sister, 10s. 6cl.” &c. p. 392. 

Now, dear sir, I would appeal to yourself, and ask whether it was 
well possible for us, desirous to share in the ^ood opinion of our fel- 
low citizens, to let such charges, sanctioned by your name, go forth 
on the wings of the press to every village and hamlet in the land, 
without claiming a hearing for our defence. It is true, that the charges 
are, in themselves, too gross and absurd to be believed by men of en- 
lightened and educated minds. But when published with your name, 
when published in this city, when published with a direct, express, 
and positive call on the “ Priests and Bishops” of the church to meet 
you in the broad field of this important and vital discussion— then the 
case is changed ; and there is no alternative left, except either to obey 
your summons to the field of controversy, or allow the opposite course 
to be construed into a tacit admission of the charges thus boldly pre- 
ferred. Persons were already begining to ask the question — “ If these 
accusations were unfounded, why do not some of the Catholic clergy 
deny them, or meet Mr. B. in the field of controversy to which he has 
invited them ? If they are silent, when such charges, sustained by a 
respectable name, are brought against their religion, what are we to 
infer from their silence ?” 

It was in this stage of the question, that your letter was brought 
under my notice, and the circumstances seemed to leave no room for 
hesitation as to the course to be pursued. The charges against the 
Catholic religion, and the challenge addressed to its ministers, were 
clear and unequivocal. Our readers, then, will pronounce whether 
any Catholic priest or bishop has been the assailant in this contro- 
versy, or whether I, among the least competent of them to under- 
take it, should not be considered as the party standing in the atti- 
tude of defence. 

It is true, you qualify these facts and conclusions by reverting to a 
private controversy between a Catholic layman and a member of your 
congregation in Baltimore ; but this is an incident of ordinary occur- 
rence, and has no necessary relation except to the parties immediately 
concerned. Y our challenge — for I must use that term in the absence of 
a more dignified one — was the same when addressed to the young 
lady in Baltimore that it now is — except that the Priests and Bishops 
of the Catholic church whom it summoned to the discussion, were 
entirely ignorant of its existence. But when you spread out before the 
American public the elaborate impeachment of their doctrine and mo- 
rals which your letter contains, then it was that the document was 
served on the parties whom it arraigned, and the public duly advised 
of the proceeding. Do not suppose that I am now complaining of 
your proceedings in this matter. My object is different; it is merely 
to show, by a statement of the facts, that view it on what side you will, 


16 


CONTROVERSY. 


every aspect determines clearly our relative positions ; yours as the 
assailant, and mine as the assailed. You speak of my letter addressed 
to the editor of the Philadelphian during the prevalence of the Cho- 
lera, as one of the immediate reasons for the publication of yours, 
but even then I was only repelling an unprovoked attack upon the 
moral character of the Catholic clergy. 

I am well pleased to have this opportunity of stating to the public 
the grounds on which I utterly disclaim having provoked this contro- 
versy ; and the more so, because there are many persons who depre- 
cate such discussions : some, regarding the truth of religion with as 
much dread or indifference as Pilate ; others, from the admixture of 
personal invective and even scurrility which has sometimes character- 
ized controversy. Of this latter, however, I trust nothing shall ap- 
pear in our correspondence. I cannot conceive that a strict adherence 
to the established laws of literary decorum and propriety imposes 
any restraint on the freedom of debate, or forbids the thorough dissec- 
tion of an adverse argument. 

There is only one other topic connected with our correspondence, 
to which I shall, at this time, call attention. You have frequently 
expressed your surprise that I did not take up your letter as I found 
it in the “ Christian Advocate,” and answer it, instead of adopting 
the present course. You have even intimated that it is beyond the 
reach of refutation. I assure you, dear sir, that it never so appeared to 
me, and that my motive for adopting this plan was entirely different. 
There are first principles at the bottom of every subject, the applica- 
tion of which never fails to throw light on questions in detail springing 
out of such subject. I saw in your letter that you had entirely over- 
looked those first principles of Christianity by the application of which 
truth may be distinguished from error. I saw our doctrines incorrectly 
stated, arraigned, tried, and triumphantly condemned — but then you 
were conducting these proceedings in the absence of every tribunal 
except that of your own opinion, and the opinion of those who might 
happen to agree with you. 

But knowing that Christ, in the constitution of his church, has pro- 
vided a tribunal expressly for the purpose of determining such dis- 
putes as those agitated in your letter, I chose to appeal to the legiti- 
mate umpire. I am happy that you have also recognised the existence 
and competency of this divinely appointed tribunal, and although our 
controversy is to commence with an investigation of what it is , still 
the fact of its existence is a point on which there is no dispute between 
us. This starting from a common principle should indicate that truth , 
and not personal triumph, is the object we have mutually in view 
and proceeding under the guidance of the rules agreed upon, I hope 
and trust that the discussion will lead to consequences neither unplea- 
sant nor unprofitable to our readers or ourselves. In this way ques- 
tions will succeed each other in the rational order both of time and 
place — and it now remains for me to open the correspondence with 
that great question, viz. “ What is that infallible means which Christ 
has appointed for determining disputes in his church ?” 

Yours, very respectfully, 

John Hughes. 


c 


PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 


17 


New York, January 5th, 1833. 

To the Rev. John Hughes. 

Sir, — I had hoped that our prolonged correspondence would cease 
with the adoption of the rules, and give place to the expected discus- 
sion. You have felt it necessary, however, to write again on prelimi- 
nary subjects, and your letter calls for some notice by me on several 
accounts. 

In reference to the origin of the controversy which is about to be 
undertaken, I now in conclusion lay before you the passages which 
relate to it in the published letter. They are taken in part from the 
beginning, and in part from the close of that communication. 

“ Baltimore, 25th July, 1831. 

“ My dear Madam, — When you first put into my hands « Father 
Clement,’ with the strictures of an anonymous writer, I cursorily 
looked at his remarks, and sent you, in reply, a work called the ‘ Pro- 
testant,’ originally published in Edinburgh, as containing a full and 
satisfactory refutation of those strictures.” 

“ You have since informed me that a written answer would be more 
satisfactory — nay more, that it was in some sort triumphantly de- 
manded as impossible.” 

“You are fully aware, that the points at issue between Protestants 
and Papists are numerous and vital, and that it would require far more 
leisure than I ever can command, and far more talent than I possess, 
to do justice to this discussion.” 

“ Nor is the writer to whom I am requested to reply, in the proper 
sense, a responsible one. His name was for some time withheld, and 
when at my request it was given, the author, though highly respect- 
able and intelligent, did not appear to me an accredited defender of 
his principles ; though in all likelihood as wise as his teachers. He 
may not be acknowledged as authority by those whom he here repre- 
sents.” 

“ Notwithstanding these things, however, I feel your call to be im- 
perative. As your pastor, it is my duty and my privilege to do all 
in my power to aid you in arriving at a knowledge of the truth, and 
in repelling attacks on our precious faith. And when to this is added 
the declaration that we do not reply to such things because we cannot ; 
when our delay, arising from pressing avocations, from dislike of con- 
troversy, or from a delicate regard to what is proper, in the mode and 
spirit of conducting it, are triumphantly appealed to as evidences of 
the conceded weakness of our cause, it appears indeed our duty to 
take up the challenge.” [Christian Advocate, August, 1832, p. 347.] 

“ In pressing these questions, we intend to be respectful, though 
plain — and as we have been called on for a defence of our views, so 
we feel it a duty to reply.” 

“ Finally, we expect a reply to these various objections and inqui- 
ries, and we ask one from some accredited respondent , not from one 
whose defence may be disclaimed, after the trouble of an extended 
discussion has been gone into. There are priests and bishops, &c. 
We are willing to meet any of them on the broad field of this import- 
ant and vital discussion; and hereby make this disposition known,” 

C 


18 


CONTROVERSY. 


tt Though removed from Baltimore, I shall be near at hand [in the 
city of Philadelphia], and by God’s grace, prepared for any respect- 
ful and intelligent communication of responsible character, on this 
subject.” 

In these passages you have the history of the discussion, prior to 
your taking it up. Let it speak for itself. I have already given you 
some of my reasons for its publication, and need not here repeat them. 
I freely own that the publication of my letter gave notoriety and in 
tensity to the call for a reply. But it did not begin the controversy 
— nor did it first publish , though it first printed it ; for the whole 
matter had become a subject of conversation in Baltimore, and the 
manuscripts severally written, were so far read, as to constitute a 
publicly known issue. It is also a little remarkable, that the reason- 
ing which you adopt, as to the Roman Catholic community, applied 
strictly to the- congregation of which I was then pastor. It was known 
to many that I had been addressed ; that an answer was demanded of 
me ; that I had at first declined to give one, sending only a book on 
the controversy, and that a written reply from me was then, with 
some triumph, insisted on. And it was not until nearly a whole year had 
passed, and many of my friends thought my own character, and even 
the cause of truth suffering from my silence, that I took up my pen. 
There is another fact which may cast some light on this subject In due 
time, a manuscript attempt at a reply to my letter was sent after me 
to Philadelphia. My alternative then became as follows, that is, ac- 
cording to your reasoning — I must reply to the Baltimore layman, or 
be silent. The former, I had pledged myself not to do ; the latter 
would have been by construction, and almost by confession, a surren- 
der of my principles, as incapable of defence. What then could I do ? 
Honour forbade me to publish his communications ; consistency and 
common sense forbade me to reply to them. — The only course which 
remained for me therefore, was to publish my own letter, and thus 
transfer the discussion to a responsible author, if any such should 
choose to take it up. Yet when I do this, you claim the public sym- 
pathy as an injured defender of your faith, against the unprovoked 
attacks of a presuming Protestant ! But sometimes an objector’s con- 
sistency is best discovered by comparing him with himself. I have 
heretofore barely alluded to your publication, last autumn, in the U. S. 
Gazette. Before you saw what you term my challenge, you took 
occasion in reply to an article from the editor of the Philadelphian to 
speak in the following terms of Protestant ministers. “And what 
can they [the Roman Catholic Priests,] what can the public think, 
when they see the shepherds, who are all remarkable for their pastoral 
solicitude, so long; as the flock is healthy, the pastures pleasant, and 
the fleece luxuriant, abandoning their post, when disease begins to 
spread desolation .in the fold ?” And again, “ How comes it then, 
that these objects [cholera patients] have been so generally forsaken 
by the Protestant clergy ? It is not long since I read an account of 
eight missionaries, that is two missionaries [the rest being wives and 
children], embarking for the conversion of the distant heathen. The 
conversion of a single Gentoo is blazoned over the land, as a triumph 
of Christianity, and a victory above all value of money and labour ; 
and how comes it that the Protestant of Philadelphia, less fortunate 


PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 


19 


than the Gentoo of Hindostan, cannot find a clergyman of his own 
persuasion, who would whisper to him words of hope, through the 
redemption of Jesus Christ, from the moment that the fatal disease 
has seized upon' him. I do not say that this was the case with all the 
Protestant clergy ; but I do say it of some.” 

You will not understand me as intending at all to defend the article 
to which you reply, or to find fault with you for answering it. But 
I present to you for your consideration, your most ungenerous * and 
unjust, and injurious aspersions of Protestant ministers. And is it 
true, then, that the body of Protestant ministers, Episcopal, Baptist, 
Methodist Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregational, &c. “ generally ” 
“ though not all ,” forsook the dying sufferers, after having lived on 
the fat of the land, and the sweat of the people’s faces, when in pros- 
perity and health ? And is it true that these Protestants with all their 
missionary efforts are so base, so hypocritical as this ? If you can 
prove your charges, then we deserve your most faithful exposure, with 
all the reprehension and infamy which your statements, if well founded, 
are fitted to produce. But my principal object in this reference is, to 
show what liberties you take with Protestants, in contrast with your 
strictures on and complaints of my letter, published in the Christian 
Advocate ; I need not add that the very framework of your periodical 
publications involves the scheme of aggression on the religion ofprotest- 
ants : that if we enter your places of public worship we are continually 
liable to meet with the denunciations applied to heretics alone ; — and 
that between propagandism and intolerance, in all countries where 
your worship is established by law, Protestants have no enviable lot. 
Let not the odium then attendant on unprovoked attacks be levelled 
at me ; and if at the proper time, I sustain with suitable evidence, 
the statements made in the Christian Advocate, may I not claim the 
universal privilege of pleading justification in the proof of the facts ? 
You, will scarcely look for me to enter on this proof now. 

As to archbishop Usher, however, you can hardly imagine that I 
wished to adduce his opinion of your doctrine as authority in your 
church. You know, however, that he has written on this subject,, 
and stands high with Protestants. It was his quotations from the 
catechism of the council of* Trent, &c. [having the originals before 
him, which I had not at the time,] which I intended to refer to as 
authority in your church. But by some strange error, a prince among 
Protestants was made a Romanist, a mistake which corrects itself, and 
does him only injustice. It is to the catechism we wished to refer — 
quoted by him. You mistake me when you suppose, that the reason 
of my insisting on an answer to my published letter, was my impres- 
sion that it was so very conclusive as to preclude reply. I thought 
that the candid, natural, honourable course, for a scholar, a gentleman, 
and a Christian to pursue, and having heard of you as one of the 
most distinguished ministers of your church, supposed you the more 
likely to concur in so obvious a suggestion. It is also at a great 
sacrifice on my part, that I now conform to your wishes, and enter 
on the present mode of controversy. A connected discussion either 
oral, or from the press, would have been more convenient to me, on all 
accounts. Yet I have waived my rights ; I have in chief part adopted 
your rules ; I have conceded to you the choice of questions, in the 


20 


CONTROVERSY. 


two general propositions suggested as the basis of investigation : and 
you are to commence the discussion, and I am to defend the Protestant 
faith, though you call yourself the challenged person ; and while mine 
is the life of a traveller, yours is one of sanctuary, quietude, and lite- 
rary leisure. Yet still I meet you with hearty satisfaction, having 
it as my chief source of regret, that whilst American Protestant 
Christians present a galaxy of great and good men, abundantly qualified 
to defend our precious faith, this momentous controversy has fallen 
into such poor hands as mine. 

I fully reciprocate the wish that we may be enabled to pursue our 
investigation in the right spirit and to the best ends. I shall affect 
no false charity ; I pray that the God of truth and love may imbue 
us with that which is true. 

I have only to add, that I admit no infallible rule of faith, or judge 
of controversy, but the revealed will of God. What that revealed 
will is, according to previous arrangement between us, is the question 
with which you are now to open the controversy. The delayed 
receipt of your last letter, it having reached me only the evening be- 
fore I left Philadelphia for this city, is my apology for a correspond- 
ing delay in sending this. 

I remain yours, respectfully, 

John Breckenridge. 

P. S. In the event of inevitable interruptions, I shall claim the 
indulgence mentioned in a former letter, of a temporary suspension 
of the discussion. 




CONTROVERSY. 



RULES. 



The undersigned. agreeing to have an amicable discussion of the great points 
of religious controversy, between Protestants and Roman Catholics, do hereby 
bind themselves to the observance of the following rules: 

1. The parties shall write and publish, alternately, in the weekly religious 
papers, called the Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic paper, to be furnished 
by the first of January. It being understood that the communications shall be 
published after tlie following plan: — One party opening the first week, the other 
party replying the next week, and every piece to be republished in the imme- 
diately succeeding number of the Roman Catholic paper. The commmunica. 
tions not to exceed four columns of the Presbyterian, nor to continue beyond 
six months, without consent of parties. 

2. The parties agree that there is an infallible Rule of Faith established by 
Christ to guide us in matters of Religion, for the purpose of determining dis- 
putes in the Church of Christ. 

3. They moreover agree, that after giving their views of the Rule of Faith, 
they shall proceed to discuss the question, “Is the Protestant religion, the re- 
ligion of Christ?” 

4. The parties agree respectively, to adhere strictly to the subject of discus- 
sion, for the time being, and to admit no second question, until the first shall 
have been exhausted Each party shall be the judge when he is done with & 
subject, and shall be at liberty to occupy his time with a second topic, when he 
is done with the first, leaving to the other party the liberty of continuing to re- 
view til? abondoned topic, as long as he shall choose; subject, however, to be 
answered, if he introduce new matter. 

5. Mr. Hughes to open the discussion, and Mr. Breckinridge to follow, ac- 
cording to the dictates of his own judgment. 


JOHN BRECKINRIDGE, 
JNO. HUGHES. 


Philadelphia, December 14th, 1832. 


RULE OF FAITH. 


January 21, 18SS. 


To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 

Rev. Sir , — l am extremely happy to have this opportunity, not of 
my own seeking, to submit to your consideration and that of our 
readers, the reasons which prove the truth of the Catholic Religion, 
and the tendency of every other system to weaken the principles 
and sap the foundation of Christianity itself. In doing this, however, 
I shall be careful to abstain from the use of gross or insulting epithets. 
I shall make no appeal to prejudice or passion — but availing myself 
of those advantages which are peculiar to the cause of truth — I shall 
address your reason, through the medium of rational argument found 


i 


s 


CONTROVERSY. 


ed upon solid principles and indisputable facts. I shall merely pre 
mise in addition to what 1 have stated, that I discriminate between 
the false doctrines of modern sects and the individuals whose misfor- 
tune it is to have been educated in the belief of them, without a knowl- 
edge, and sometimes without even a suspicion of their erroneousness. 
Ignorance of truth is criminal, only when it is voluntary, and when 
men, through party attachments, prejudice, or human respect, dread 
the consequences of investigation. But even then, God alone is the 
judge, before whose tribunal they shall stand or fall. I judge no man 
— be the sect or denomination to which he belongs what it may. 

When we reflect that there was a time when the multitude of belie- 
vers had but one heart and one soul, and contrast that period with the 
conflict of opinions, and the rivalship of creeds which have produced 
the present distracted condition of the Christian family, the lover of 
truth may find enough to make him weep for charity. Then, there 
was one Lord, one faith, one baptism; constituting the unity of spirit 
in the bond of peace. Now, the baptism, the faith, and the Lord 
himself are become so many topics of dispute, watch-words of divi- 
sion, and signals of contradiction. Men, under pretence of reforming 
his church, have tampered with the integrity of Christian belief, and 
either blind or desperately indifferent to the consequences, have burst 
the ligament which bound the doctrines of Christianity together, and 
left them defenceless against the invading spirit of infidelity. The 
ancient land marks of the Christian’s belief have been removed — the 
works of the citadel have been broken down, and the breach once 
made, Religion has been robbed, as far as it was in the power of man’s 
perverted ingenuity to rob her, of the very privilege and principle of 
self-preservation. 

What is the cause of this unhappy state of things? What is the 
prolific principle that has produced such a harvest of creeds, in which 
the wheat of sound doctrines is scarcely perceptible amidst the tares 
and cockle of delusion? That principle, Rev. Sir, is private inter- 
pretation . — The Presbyterian Church, like every other church that 
has adopted it, is too weak to sustain its pressure, and is consequently 
falling apart, und*r its operation. That principle, or as it is regarded 
among Protestants, that privilege, is destructive of unity, by making 
doctrine, like matter, infinitely divisible. Let a sect be composed of 
only three individuals, and, if private interpretation be adopted as 
the cement of religious union, they will not long cling together. But 
the confessions of faith by which Protestants endeavour to preserve 
the unity of spirit in the bond of peace, is a practical proof that they 
themselves do not regard private interpretation as conservative of truth 
Let it not be said that these remarks warrant the charge that the Ca- 
tholic Religion is hostile to the dissemination and perusal of the Holy 
Scriptures. I protest against such an inference; all that I want to 
establish is contained in the spirit and letter of St. Peter’s declara- 
tion, that “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.” 

Now the Protestant “rule of faith” utterly reverses this declaration, 
and makes all Scripture of every private interpretation. 'The Pro- 
testant rule of faith is, if I am not mistaken (and if I be, I will thank 
you for correction) the Bible alone* 


CONTROVERSY. 


I 


"The Bible alone,” then, is, you suppose, "that infallible rule of 
faith established by Christ, to guide us in matters of religion, for the 
purpose of determining disputes in the church of Christ,” to the exist- 
ence of which we have both subscribed our names. Allow' me, Rew 
Sir, here to remark, that whether you chose to recognise, or to deny 
the existence of an "infallible rule of faith,” was to me, a matter of 
utter indifference. The cause of truth would have been vindicated as 
much by the denial, as it can be by the admission. In the former 
case you would have reduced the religion of Christ to a matter of 
opinion, and this is precisely what you do, not by admitting its exist- 
ence, for in this you were right, but by restricting it as Protestants 
are obliged to do, to the Bible alone. 

You have sufficiently defined the rule of faith by telling us that it 
was established by Christ, "for the purpose of guiding us in matters 
of religion, and of determining disputes in his church.” Now* it is 
altogether inconsistent with our belief of the personal character and 
attributes of Jesus Christ, to suppose that he would have established 
this “rule of faith, as a means, without having rendered it competent 
to the end for which it was established. As a rule therefore, it must 
be practically as well as theoretically infallible. — Otherwise it would 
be incompetent to the end for which it was established, and could nei- 
ther “guide us in matters of religion, nor determine our disputes.” 
It would be a mockery; more worthy of the Arabian impostor, than 
of the Son of God. The “infallible rule of faith,” then, which you 
have admitted in our regulations for this controversy, must be infallible 
not only in itself, but in its application to the purpose of its establish- 
ment, so as to give those who abide by its decision an infallible cer- 
tainty that they abide in the doctrines of Christ. 

Let us now examine whether the Protestant rule of faith — the Bi- 
ble alone — is competent by practical application, to the end for which 
such a guide was established by the Saviour of men. In other words, 
let us see whether your definition of that rule, as a Protestant, does 
not conflict with your admission of its existence as a Christian. I 
shall conduct the examination on the principle already laid down, 
which you are at liberty to refute if you can; but which, if you do 
not refute, shall be looked upon as conceded; — for I wish you to be 
advised, that in the whole controversy, every inch of ground which 
is not disputed by you, shall be looked upon as so much given up to 
the cause of Catholicity and truth. And at the same time, I have to 
request of you, as an honorable adversary, that in attemping a refu- 
tation, you will take up my arguments in my own words — and ac- 
cording to their context and meaning. 

The question then is this: Is th q Bible alone, that practical rule 
of faith, established by Christ, to guide us in matters 01 religion, and 
to determine disputes in his Church ? 

If it is not, then it will follow, that the whole Protestant system 
that is, the system of all who adopt the Bible alone to “guide them 
in matters of religion,” hinges on a principle which is vicious and de- 
fective. 1 will now proceed to state the reasons which should make it 
manifest to every unprejudiced mind, that the Bible, alone , is not, and 
eannotbe the infallible rule established by Christ for the purpose ef 


4 


CONTROVERSY. 


determining disputes in his church- These reasons I vviil lay uowr 
in distinct paragraphs in order to make them convenient for the pur- 
poses of reference, and to bring them more within the reach of refu- 
tation, number for number. 

I. The Rule of faith adopted by Protestants, is the Bible alone — - 
and that rule, you admit, was established by Christ, and infallible. 
The Bible includes all the books of the Old and New Testament, ac- 
knowledged by the Protestant canon of Scripture. Now if Christ 
established the rule of faith, it certainly was not the Bible; for it is 
an historical fact, that no part of the New Testament was written for 
several years, and some of it, not until more than half a century after 
Christ’s ascension into heaven. How could the Bible alone, then, be 
a rule of faith to those Christians who lived, and believed, and died 
in the first century, before the Bible was written? Had they no in- 
fallible rule of faith — for they had not the Bible? Or did Christ es- 
tablish two rules, one for them and another for us? And if he did 
show us the evidence of the fact, from the Bible alone. 

II. The belief that the Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith, is 

not only an article, but a fundamental article of Protestanism. Now 
as it is the peculiar boast of Protestants that they believe nothing but 
what is contained in the Bible, I ask you to point the chapter and 
verse which says, that the u Bible alone is. the infallible rule of faith, 
established by Christ to guide us in matters of religion, and to deter- 
mine disputes.” If there is no such text, then it follows that the Pro- 
testant rule is a mere gratuitous assumption, unauthorized by the very 
document from which they profess to derive all their doctrine. This 
assumption is the pedestal on which their system stands, and I ask 
what supports the pedestal itself? You will tell me that “Scripture 
is profitable, for reproof,” &c. 1 admit it, but between that and its 

being the only rule of faith there is a wide difference, You will tell 
me that the Jews were recommended by our Saviour, and the Berai- 
ons by his apostle to read the Scriptures; I admit it, but all that goes 
no farther than to prove that they are profitable, &c. St. Paul com- 
mends his disciple for having been acquainted with the Scripture from 
his childhood; I admit it, but St. Peter tells us that there are persons 
who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. Where then, I 
repeat the question, is the scriptural warrant, for making the “Bible 
alone” our rule of faith? 

HI. What do you mean by the Bible alone? Is it the Bible on the 
shelf of your library? Or is it the Bible as you peruse it? The for- 
mer cannot be your rule of faith, and the latter is not the Bible alone, 
but you and the Bible together. Do you then, Rev. Sir, look upon 
yourself and the Bible together as constituting that infallible rule es- 
tablished by Christ? 

IV. The Bible alone cannot be our rule of faith, because we are 
bound as Christians to believe that the Bible is an authentic and in- 
spired book, and this I defy any one to prove from the Bible alone. 

V. The Redeemer of the woild never intended that the Bible alone 
should be the rule of faith— because, it was not universally known 
until the end of the fifth century, what books were to be regarded as 
inspired scripture— consequently the Christians of the preceding ages 


C ©NTItO YERI Y. 


5 


were destitute of that infallible rule which you admit was established 
by Christ; or if they possessed a rule at all, it certainly was not the 
Bible alone. Besides, consider the millions who believed in Christ 
and could not read, or could not possess themselves of a Bible, before 
printing was invented and since, were they on this account — are Pro- 
testants now who cannot read, destitute of a rule of faith? 

VI. The Protestant rule of faith is not the infallible rule established 
by Christ — for, the object and end of that rule, was ; to “determine dis- 
putes in his church:” and it is an undeniable fact, that w hilst this 
false rule has given rise to interminable controversy among the sects 
that have adopted it; — since the origin of Christianity, not so much 
as one single “dispute” has been determined by the Bible alone! 

VJI. The Bible alone, or the Bible operated upon by private inter- 
pretation, has given rise to all the heresies that exist. The Socinian, 
the Universalist, the Swedenborgian, have as good a right to under- 
stand its meaning as you. They protest against the doctrines of the 
Catholic church as you do: they have the same rule of faith, the 
Bible alone; and is theirs the infallible guide appointed by Christ? 
His ride, you admit w as infallible; can you say as much of theirs? 
His rule w as conservative of unity in his doctrine; is yours? 

VIII. Do you not admit that in holding the Presbyterian doctrine 
you may be in error? If so, then you must admit the possibility of 
the Sociniaivs being right — especially as he follows the principle 
which you recommend to all, as the infallible rule of faith establish- 
ed by Christ to guide us in matters of religion — the Bible alone . 

Now I ask, is it consistent for you to exclude the Socinian from the 
pale of Christianity, whilst you cue compelled to admit by your own 
rule, that your belief may be false, and his may be true! I say you 
are compelled as a consistent Protestant, to make this admission — 
and I am prepared to prove it. 

IX. If the Bible alone be the rule of faith, it must be the Bible ac- 
cording to each one’s interpretation. Now, Rev. Sir, let me suppose 
a case to illustrate my meaning. I will imagine four Presbyterian 
clergymen reading the Bible — yourself being included in the number. 
The one becomes persuaded that Unitarianism is the doctrine of the 
Bible. The other that it is universal salvation; — the third that the 
doctrine of Swedenborg, is the true doctrine, according to Scripture, 
- — I ask you whether these brethren would not be bound before God, 
as honest men, to quit your church and embrace respectively these 
different systems, which according to the Protestant rule of faith are 
found (relatively to them) in the Bible? I say ihey would — and X 
call on you for the proof of the contrary. But this is not all. What 
if a ray of divine light should break in upon your own mind- — what 
if the scales of prejudice should fall from your eyes in the perusal of 
the sacred page, and you should see, or imagine you saw r , the evidence 
that Christ established a church to which he communicated the attri- 
bute of infallibility, and that this church can be no other than, — shall 
1 say it? — the Roman Catholic church — 1 ask again, under such a per- 
suasion would you not yourself be bound before God, to embrace the 
doctrines of that church — even at the risk of being called an idolater, 
I gay you would, I mention these various operations of your rule of 


6 


©ONTROYERSY. 


faith, to show that the Redeemer never did establish— “to guide us in 
matters of religion arid determine disputes in his church” — a princi- 
ple which in application, is found to work the destruction, instead of 
the accomplishment of the ends for which it was instituted. For these 
reasons, then, 1 say it is impossible that the “infallible rule of faith” 
established by Christ should be the Bible alone. And consequently 
that the Protestant rule is false. 

X. The doctrines of Christ were delivered to mankind, and believ- 
ed as positive truths, or facts , about which there could be no ground 
for disputation. Now the object for which an “infallible rule of faith 
was established, by our Savour, was to guard these eternal and un- 
changeable truths, or facts, from being confounded with, or lost in the 
erring speculations of men, who, he foresaw, would endeavour to 
supplant him, by substituting their opinions for his doctrine, and 
teaching error in his name. And this being the case, is it not as 
clear as noon day, that the Protestant rule is not the rule established 
by Christ. Why? Because instead of teaching the doctrines of Christ 
as positive truths, facts, it merely submits them to its votaries as opi- 
nions, held by the preacher, agreed to by those who drew up the 
confession of faith, and supposed to be contained in the Bible. But 
supposed by whom? by the members of the sect. And supposed 
how long? just until a change comes over the spirit of private inter- 
pretation. Sir, the most vital tenet of Christianity, the divinity of 
Jesus Christ, if brought in contact with the Protestant rule of faith, 
will be dissolved by the very touch, into a matter of speculation and 
mere, human opinion, whereas Jesus Christ never inculcated the be- 
lief of an opinion. Therefore, the Protestant rule of faith so far 
from being tlie fountain of infallible assurance as to what doctrines we 
should believe, is, on the contrary, the very parent of uncertainty , and 
cannot consequently be that “infallible rule established by Christ 
to guide us in matters of religion, and to determine disputes in his 
church.” 

I might still multiply these arguments, but it is unnecessary. The 
conclusions are fairly drawn, and I hold myself prepared to prove the 
premises and vindicate the reasoning whenever they are called in dis- 
pute. The question is no; how' many great and good men have been 
involved in the same delusion as yourself with regard to the rule of 
faith. The question is not how many brilliant minds have been 
warped, and turned aside from rectitude of judgment on the subject 
of religion, by adopting or inheriting from birth and education, a 
principle of guidance in religion, which principle, when examined , is 
found to be in itself repugnant to reason, unauthorized by Revelation, 
and in its practical consequences utterly subversive of the doctrines 
of Christianity, by reducing them to the uncertainty of mere opinion. 
But the question is, what is “that infallible rule established by Christ 
to guide us in matters of religion, for the purpose of determining dis- 
putes in the church of Christ,” — whose existence you have recog- 
nized? 

The cause of trutli requires that you should meet my arguments 
and refute them, article for article. What course you will adopt to 
accomplish this, it is difficult for me to conceive. But I am satisfied 


CONTROVERSY. 


that our readers will not be contented with that sliding system of 
controversial tactics by which the opponents of the true religion, are 
accustomed to “slur the notes'” of an argument, which they cannot 
answer . One part of this system is, to draw consequences from our 
language which we never intended, and then refute their own deduc- 
tions, instead of taking up the real difficulty, and grappling with the 
reasons by which it is sustained. Another is, to appeal to parti / 
feelings , and touch the string of prejudice against the Catholic reli- 
gion. I know that there are individuals, in every Protestant denomi- 
nation, who are not to be operated on by any or all the resources of 
evasion. There are men of every denomination, who with a candid, 
honest, and impartial mind, will judge our arguments according to 
their intrinsic evidence— I ask no more. 

The importance of determining the question of the rule of faith 
must be manifest to all who have reflected on the subject. In con- 
troversy, it is like the standard of weights and measures used in the 
disposal of merchandise; whenever the merchant uses false stand- 
ards, he is certain to cheat his customers or himself. It is then, Rev. 
Sir, useless for you to condemn the doctrines of the Catholic church, 
until vou shall have proved that the rule by which you judge them 
is the infallible rule. The doctrines of Christianity have been regard- 
ed by the Catholic church from the beginning, as fixed stars in the 
firmament of Revelation. She ascertained and certified their exis- 
tence by the same infallible rule, for if I be allowed to continue the 
figure,) the same telescope which she received from Jesus Christ 
himself, as the true, and only true medium of observation. By this 
means she knew them from the commencement, by this means she 
defined more clearly in her general councils, their existence, rela- 
tive position, and influence, as occasion required, — and by this means 
also, she was enabled to detect the “new lights,” which men in eve- 
ry age attempted to plant in her firmament. Thus it was, that amidst 
the contending elements of heresy, on the right hand and on the left, 
she has pursued the even tenour of her way, imparting to all nations, 
and to all generations, as she passed, the knowledge of the doctrines 
which her founder, Christ, commanded her to teach and preach to 
every creature. Some fifteen hundred years after her establishment, 
a few individuals rise up in the might of private opinion , and assert 
that the church had fallen into error, begin to teach new doctrines, 
and reject others which had always been believed. This act is what 
is called in history by the specious name of Reformation. At first 
they professed their willingness to abide Oy the decision of the church, 
touching their opinions, but as soon as the church, by applying the 
proper medium of infallible discernment, had pronounced their opi- 
nions to be contrary to tbe doctrines of Christ, as soon as she had 
refused to raise their “new lights” to the dignity of fixed stars in the 
heavens of belief — from that moment, it was determined that they 
should declare themselves independent of the church, and that they 
should fabricate a “telescope” of their own. They have done so, 
but neither could this determine what were the fixed anil immutable 
doctrines of Christianity. The German Reformer wished all men to 
*«e m he saw — but the medium of observation which was correct at 


9 


eONTKOVKRSY 


Wirtemberg, was found to be deceitful at Genera, and thus every 
man who felt himself called upon to labour in the Reformation, began 
by making his own telescope. And not only this; every individual 
is furnished with a pocket spy-glass — by which he has a right to 
judge the doctrine of his minister, and see whether it is conformable 
to the discoveries of the great telescope, contained in the "Confes- 
sion of Faith” — to judge of the confession itself, whether it is con- 
formable to the Bible — and to judge of the Bible, and see whether it 
is conformable to his — spy-glass — that is, private interpretation. 

Thus, Rev. Sir, thus it was that you judged of the Catholic doc- 
trines of Christianity in your letter which gave occasion to this con- 
troversy. You sayitis our faith that is contrary to the doctrines of 
Christ: 1 say it is not our faith, but your spy glass; and l protest 
against your mensuration of either Catholic or Protestant doctrine, 
until you shall have proved that your instrument of measurement is 
the “infallible rule of faith established by Christ,” as expressed in 
our articles of agreement. Now the Westminster Confession of 
Faith, to which, some will contend that you pay greater deference 
than to the Bible itself, declares that "the infallible rule of interpre- 
tation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” But be it remembered 
that this is the enactment not of the Bible, but of a number of men, 
assembled at Westminster, Anno Domini 1647, by order of Parlia- 
ment, to make a religion for the united kingdoms of Great Britain 
and Ireland. And l leave it toanv man of common sense, is this rule 
of interpretation, which they call infallible, is not a mere sophism — 
seeing that the Scripture to be interpreted, and the Scripture by which, 
it is to be interpreted, are both equally subjected to the pocket-glass 
of the reader’s private interpretation. W ould it not be absurd to say 
that the laws of this commonwealth expound their own meaning, 
without a judge? The same Confession of Faith says, that "the 
supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be deter- 
mined, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scrip- 
tures.” But this is only begging the question, and does not reach 
the difficulty: — Seeing that the subject of dispute turns precisely on 
this question, what does the Holy Spirit say ? — ."speaking in the 
Scriptures.” 

You will observe, Rev. Sir, that I have said nothing on the subject 
of the Catholic rule of faith — which, however, cannot but be considera- 
bly, though indirectly strengthened, if my arguments against the Pro- 
testant principle cannot be met by evidences stronger on the other 
side, than those I have put forth. It only remains for you to show 
that the Protestant rule of faith, is that "infallible rule established 
by Christ to guide us in matters of religion, and to determine disputes 
in his church.” 

The Scriptures are indeed the inspired word of God; as such they 
have been guarded and vindicated by the church. God forbid that I 
should ascribe to them the errors of those who claim to walk under 
their guidance. The only object l have had in view, is to show that 
the rule of faith adopted by Protestants, is a rule which will lead in- 
fallibly to the abuse of the Scriptures, and to t ie destruction of the 
revealed doctrines of Christianity. The Bible alone, in other words, 


eONTROYKRSY. 


9 


private interpretation ma y serve the purpose of the Presbyterian 
against the Catholic, but it will equally serve the purpose of the Soci- 
nian against both. 

In the course ot this letter I have spoken with entire freedom of the 
principles of Protestant doctrine. If any one should be offended at 
this, I beg such a person to remember that you invited me to the 
discussion; and that, having accepted the invitation, it would not be 
generous to find fault with me for speaking the truth, and the whole 
truth, provided I give facts and reasoning to prove that I may speak 
nothing but the truth. 

Yours, very respectfully, 

Jno. Hughes. 

P. S. In your last letter, published under the head of private corres- 
pondence, you introduced several topics which are certainly foreign 
to the occasion of this controversy. Ihe first is, quotations from 
your letter in the Christian Advocate, to show that you were obliged 
to answer the difficulties presented to you in the Baltimore manu- 
script. Now, in reference to this, I have already stated that I profess- 
ed to know nothing of the matter, until your letter published in Au- 
gust and September made it public, that you had challenged , “Priests 
and Bishops,” to this discussion, the whole field of controversy. 

The second is, that you represent me as having, in a letter address- 
ed to the editor of the Philidelphian, arraigned the clergy of some 
half a dozen of protestant denominations for manifesting a spirit of 
retreat during the Cholera. This may, of course, enlist the feelings 
of those clergymen against me as a public accuser; but I appeal to 
the letter itself, and to the recollection of this community, to say 
whether I preferred any charge of my own against them. On the 
contrary, l took up the charges as they had been preferred, by a cor- 
respondent of the Philadelphian, signed a “ Presbyterian ,” against 
the Protestant clergy, for abandoning their posts at such a time. It 
was in the act of replying to these charges of his correspondent, by 
the editor, that the unfortunate insinuation was made against the 
moral purity of the Catholic clergy, which, after all, may have been 
a lapsus pennse. This being the case, how could you represent me 
as the person framing accusations against the clergymen of all the 
denominations mentioned somewhat ostentatiously, in your last letter? 
Now, however, l assert, that the testimony of the physicians who 
attended the Cholera hospitals, and who periled their lives in the 
duties of their profession, would go far to establish the charge as 
suggested by a “Presbyterian.” 

Lastly, you take great pains to show in all your letters how much 
you have to do, and how much leisure, “sanctuary quietude,” remains 
on my hands, intimating thereby the advantages which my situation 
gives me over you in the conducting of this controversy. Be assured. 
Rev. Sir, that if I thought the public could be interested in the detail 
of my avocations, I also, could make out a tolerable list of duties; 
enough perhaps to turn the scales of comparison. But to make your 
mind easy on the subject of your official occupations, I beg to state 
that l am prepared, if God give me health, to sustain the Catholic 
2 


CONTROVERSY. 


1 © 

argument against any or all the clergymen of the Synod or General 
Assembly, provided he or they write with ynur signature , and ad- 
here to the rules. I make this remark not by the way of boasting, but 
because you allude to, and dwell, as I think, too emphatically on the 
multitude of your official duties. confidence is not in my own 

abilities, that would be a poor and pitiful reliance, but it is in iny 
cause — truth , and* her eternal evidences. 


J»o. Hughes. 


RULE OF FAITH. 

Jfew-York, February 2d, 163$. 

To thk R*v. Johw Hughes, 

Sir ,—? -It is one of my principles neither to seek nor to shun con- 
troversy. Of the origin of this discussion the public will judge; and 
I am willing to abide by its impartial decision. In the work of the 
ministry.it has been and still is my happiness, to enjoy the most 
peaceable and pleasant communion with my brethren of those deno- 
minations of Christians, whom Protestants are accustomed to call 
evangelical. As controversy is now clearly my duty, I think myself 
happy that it relates to a system, against which all such Protestants 
are united, and with whose rise or final overthrow, in the opinion of 
them all, the most precious hopes, and the highest interests of men 
and nations, as well as the supreme honour of Jesus Christ, are inse- 
parably blended. 

And now in the outset, I would inquire by what right you say, 
“In this whole controversy, every inch of ground which is not dis- 
puted by you shall be looked upon as so much given up to the cause 
of Catholicity and truth?” It is then presupposed that you are the 
representative of the universal church in this matter? Is the resi- 
duum of truth with you ? — But passing this, I only remark that, 
whatever you may arrogate, I shall confine myself as far as possible, 
to prominent points, and hope to show so clearly your fid lacy, in 
them, that what may be left, will not be worth contending for. I 
shall of course pursue my own order in replying to your structures 
and queries. But where you repeat, I shall not be expected to answer 
twice the same thing, and where you confuse the question before us 
for want of order, you must not expect me to follow your example. 

The first point of discussion is the Rule of Faith. It is agreed 
that “there is an infallible rule of faith established by Christ, to guide 
us in matters of religion, for the purpose of determining disputes in 
the church of Christ.” I regret that you did not define your own 
rule of faith. Ours is “The Word of God as contained in the 
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.” We own no judge 
of controversies but God. Your rule of faith is “the Old and New 
Testaments, with the books called Apocrypha, as contained in the old 
Vulgate Latin edition, and unwritten traditions interpreted by a vi- 
sible, infallible judge of controversies, according the unanimous 
consent of the fathers.” (See Council of Trent, 4th Sess. Decree 
on Tradition and the Scriptures; and Creed of Pope Pius IV.) 

You introduce your attack on our rule, by the broad assumption, 
that the principal of private interpretation has been the cause of all 
the divisions, heresies, and other evils, which distract and weaken 
the church of Christ. You bring against it 2 Pet. i. 20, “No pro- 
phecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation,” and you 
say, “Now the Protestant rule of faith utterly reverses this decla- 
ration, and makes all Scripture of every private interpretation.”— 
In this you follow your standards, certainly; for the Catechism of 
Pius IV. refers to the same passage of Scripture in answer to the 


13 


CONTROVERSY 

question, “Why may not every particular Christain have liberty to 
interpret the Scripture according to his own private judgment?” &c. 
&c. The exposition given by tne Pope is an infallible commentary 
on Peter’s Epistle. But what says the passage. “Knowing this first 
that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpetration. — 
For the prophecy came notin old time by the will of man, but holy 
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” — (vs. 
20, 21. English translation.) Here we remark, 1. That Peter tells 
the people, in a previous verse, that they do well to take heed unto 
the more sure word of prophecy. 2. It is important to be noticed 
by you that it is the prophecy of the Scripture, not the. Scripture, 
that is obscure, 3. Should your interpretation be correct, the apostle 
is made to argue thus — “The Scriptures are infallibly revealed or 
inspired, and ye do well that ye take heed to them, therefore they are 
obscure, too obscure for private explanation.” A strange reference, 
and one forcibly against yourself — for you contend for the clearness 
of your church’s interpretations, because they are infallibly guided by 
God. 4. The vuigateis the only authorized version in your church. 
Yet you and the catechism of your church, follow here, our English 
translation ! The reason is obvious. It appears to favour you. The 
vulgate is “Prophetia Scripture propria interpretatione, non fit.” 
“The prophecy of Scripture is not made by a man’s own interpre- 
tation;” or “no prophecy of Scripture is its own interpreter” — if 
you please. Here the interpretation refers to prophecy — and to the 
prophets, not to Scripture at large, nor to the reader, at all. As if he 
nad said — Prophets do not prophecy their own inventions, nor are 
their predictions to be taken singly; or in an insulted way — but eve- 
ry prophecy is dictated by the Holy Ghost as a part of "a whole, a 3 
a link in the great chain of prophecies. And yet an infallible judge, 
followed by a distinguished priest, would make this passage go against 
“private interpretation” of the Bible ! It is almost as defective a use 
of Scripture as one once made, (he was a Protestant,) who was ar- 
rested in the act of striking another, by the timely recollection of 
Paul’s injunction to Timothy, "Lay hands suddenly on no man” 
It is here remarkable that the Apostle Peter, claimed by you as the 
I. Roman Pontiff, in his last epistle, bidding farewell to the church 
before his decease, and looking down with a shepherd’s love, and a 
prophet’s eye into future ages, while giving an infallible rule For de- 
termining the sense of prophecies, (See Horsely on this place) says 
not one word about an infallible judge. Yet surely had there been 
one, there could not have been so fit a man, or so fit a place to make 
it known. 

In the course of your remarks, you seem to claim merit to your 
rule, from particular difficulties charged by you on the Protestant 
rule, yet yours may be chargeable with the same, or equal, or still 
greater difficulties. You profess to bring one of these formally to 
view in the 10th head; yet as this is a sort of subtile -thread "that 
runs through your argument, let us cut it here, and.thus disentangle 
the subject from that error. Take then for example the vcharo-e of ?!;- 
certainty, brought against us at the close of that 1 Oth head, as follows, 
“ 1 hs Protestant rule of faith, so far from being the fountain of in- 


CONTROVERSY. 


1* 


fallible assurance, as to what doctrines we should believe, is on the 
contrary the very parent of uncertainty , and cannot consequently be 
that “infallible rule established by Christ, to guide us in matters 
of religion, and to determine disputes in his church.” 

Now let us look at vour rule. If you have an infallible, visible 
judge of controversy, how do you get at the proof of his infallibili- 
ty ? Is he not appointed by Christ ? You say he is. — Then you find 
the proof of it in the sacred Scriptures of course. How then do you 
interpret those Scriptures, in discovering that there is such a judge? 
Not infallibility, for the existence of any infallible judge is yet to be 
proved. And as regards his existence you are left, as*you ! must admit, 
to decide from Scripture by your own unaided reason. Your judg- 
ment on the subject is formed upon the same principles as ours. Can 
you then claim any more certainty for your opinion than we for ours? 
if you can, show it, if not, your argument against our rule, if sound, 
destroys your own. 

Again, when you are satisfied by private, fallible judgment, that there 
is an infallible judge, you must seek the true church, for in' it alone is 
he to be found. Then how do you indentify the true church ? By 
the word of God, as you acknowledge. You find out the notes of the 
true church. Of these notes Bellannine numbers fifteen. — These are 
all to be proved from Scripture. By whom? By fallible men, (for 
the infallible judge is yet to be found;) by private interpretation; for 
the public oracle is yet to be discovered after you have searched out 
from the word of God the notes of the true church, and applied them 
to find that oracle. Then having found him you go back to ask of him, 
what the woul of God means. — Now is not this uncertain, and falli- 
ble? Yet this is the foundation on which your system of infallibility 
rests. It is more uncertain than our rule, by one remove. We go di- 
rectly to the Bible for all our doctrines, and there stop. But you begin 
fallibly, take the Bible to find the infallible judge; and then return 
with him to learn what the Bible means. But when you have got the 
decrees, confessions, bulls, &c. of this infallible judge, are they better 
or more clear than our Bible? Can your judge be more lucid than our 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? And after you have gotten these in- 
fallible judgments do not they also need an interpreter as much as the 
Bible? So palpable is the defect here, that your writers own that you 
have no infallibility but only strong probability, “prudential mo- 
tives,” and "moral certainty” in finding out the true church, and 
the infallible judge in her. The Kev. Mr. M’Guire in the “discus- 
sion,” &c. page 134, owns “that the catholic has only to exercise his 
private judgment upon the Scripture proofs of the authority of the 
church; that once established, the catholic is enabled to make an act 
of faith upon divine authority.” Once established. But how establish 
it? Ah, here is the fatal gap ! A house without a foundation ! If “pri- 
vate judgment” must find out our infallible judge why may it notalso 
find out, what we. need to guide us to God? May we not as certainly 
determine the authority of the Bib'e and its true meaning, as you the 
notes of the church, and the infallible church? May we not be as cer- 
tain of “the divinity of Jesus Christ” as you of the true church ? 
May we not rest as securely on the infallibility of this great and only 


®t)NTRO V BUST. 


head of the church, and of his inspired apostles, as you on the infalli- 
bility of your judge of controversies? If, without infallibility, you can 
reach an infallibile judge, may we not without it also reach certainty 
and safety ? 

I. But though there are points of sophistry which I had wished 
to expose on the thresh hold, I will, for want of space, pass to meet 
your objections. The first is “the Bible is the Protestant rule of 
faith. But the Bible was not written until more than half a century 
after Christ’s death — therefore the Bible alone could not have been 
the only rule of faith established by Christ.” (The reader is referred 
to the entire paragraph.) Do you mean then to say that the Bible 
was not written until fifty years after Christ’s death ? A very small 
part of the New Testament was not. But it is a strong figure of 
speech to say the Bible was not written. The Old Testament canon 
was sanctioned by Christ and his apostles. Before the New Testa- 
ment was written, and during the continuance of Christ and his 
apostles on earth, the Old Testament with their inspired instructions, 
whether spoken or written, attested by miracles, was the infallible 
rule of faith. Before the death of the last Apostle, the entire. New 
Testament was written. Now you will hardly say that the paper, 
ink, type, lids, &c. &c. of the Bible, make the Revelation, though 
they record it. If not, then all who had the Old Testament and the 
inspired instructions of Christ and his apostles, had, (essentially) 
our rule of faith— and if you prove yourself inspired by the same 
miracles they gave, we will take you too for our infallible guides. 
But they were to have no such successors, and their writings were 
intended to preserve and perpetuate their infallible instructions. — 
Hence, either the Apostles did not write the same doctrines which 
Christ and they spoke, or else we have the same rule of faith with 
those who died before all the New Testament was written. 

II. You call for the “Scriptural warrant for making the Bible 
alone the rule of faith” and require “chapter and verse.” You con- 
cede that “the Scriptures are indeed the inspired word of God and 
as such have been guarded and vindicated by the Church.” What 
then are the Scriptures? A revelation from God to man, written by 
inspired men — for the use of the race — containing infinitely impor- 
tant commnnications in which all are interested, addressed to the 
reason, conscience and affections of men— and as clearly intelligible 
(or will you dispute this?) as other books. 

What then can these Scriptures be but our rule of faith, and, a 9 , 
they are inspired, an infallible rule? And if no specific statement 
to the contrary be found in them, they must of course be regarded as 
the only one. Here then I remark, 1. The presumption from the 
admitted fact of its being a revelation is, that the Bible is the only in- 
fallible rule of faith. 2. If it be not so, it is the duty of those who 
deny it to prove their statement. You claim a prescriptive right , 
to dictate to man what this revelation means , and what they shall 
believe. This is “a dominion over their faith” that Paul the in- 
spired author of a large part of the New Testament, disclaims — - 
(2 Cor. i. 24.) It is a claim abhorrent from reason, at war with 
the rights of conscience* and a usurpation of the prerogative of* God. 


CONTROVERSY. 


15 


If not, you ought in all propriety to prove it, being a most unusual 
claim. 3. The only adequate proof that can be given of it will be 
a miracle — convincing the very senses as well as reasons of men, 
that you have a power from God to rule our faith, and if it need be, 
add new Scriptures (see John iii. 3 ) — l am happy to know that your 
church concedes this, by her pretended miracles, while her utter 
failure to work them explodes all claim to infallibility. Christ has 
thus attested his mission and his claims: so did his inspired apostles. 
You claim to succeed them in these respects. Then give the same 
proof of your claim. Until you do, the world cannot admit the pre- 
tentions. It is absurd and most presumptious. 4. But what proof 
have you from the Bible , “chapter and verse,” of such a right, viz: 
“that your church has in her, a human infallible judge of controver- 
sies, that the book called Apocrypha are part of the word of God, 
that “unwritten traditions” are of equal authority with the Bible, 
and that all these, “interpreted according to the unanimous consent 
of the Fathers,” make the true rule ot faith? — Produce it, “chap- 
ter and verse, or else your rule is a mere assumption. 

Here we might safely rest this head, for you are bound up inex- 
tricably. — But 5. We have proof, “chapter and verse,” of what 
you require, and though not ipsissim verba , the very words you 
prescribe, yet equivalent words. See then, Isaiah viii. 20. — “To 
the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to them, 
it is because there is no light in them.” 2 Tim. iii. 15 — 17. “And 
that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scripture, which are 
able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in 
Jesus Christ. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly 
furnished unto all good works.” — You have given us a garbled 
extract from this passage, comprised in only four words . Here you 
have it in full. Here is 1. The Holy Scripture, all of which is in- 
spired, and therefore infallible. 2. It is able to make wise to salva- 
tion — without any human judge or help, through faith in Christ 
Jesus. 3. It answers all the ends of a divine revelation, “is pro- 
fitable,” and adequate “for doctrine ,” “for reproof,” or confutation 
as to all sin, error, &c. &c. “for correction,” “for instruction in 
righteousness.” Is any thing wanting here ? 4. By it the minister 
oi Christ, “the man of Goa,” as well as the private Christian, 
“may be perfect,” “thoroughly furnished” without any but the 
Holy Spirit’s teaching, “unto all good works.” 5. Timothy was 
assured of all this; ana needing no change , “should continue in these 
things.” If this does not constitute an infallible rule, for all uses, 
whether “determining disputes,” or “guiding us in matters of re- 
ligion,” I am at a loss to imagine what does. Here then the word of 
God is the “very standard” which you justly say, it is so import- 
ant to settle; and it is fully and infallibly sufficient as a rule of faith. 

III. A rule of faith supposes a God to give and a mind to receive 
and use it. My God, my Bible, and my mind are therefore sup- 
posed, in my use of this rule. Now for your argument. It is pro- 
found indeed 1 It runs thus : — The Bible alone, “on the shelf,” is 


16 


CONTROVERSY. 


one A man reads it: that makes two; therefore the Bible alone 
is no rule of faith. And again: — The reader is fallible — the reader 
and the Bible make the rule of Protestants, therefore the rule is 
fallible ! Such logic, dear Sir, will not soon assert jour claim to in- 
fallibility. 

IV. Under this head you say that the Bible alone cannot be the 
rule of faith, because we are all bound as Christians to believe that 
the Bible is an authentic and inspired book, and you defy any one 
to prove this from the Bible. So are we required to believe in the 
existence of a God, yet you do not go to the Bible for proof ot 
this great doctrine. It is presupposed from the very existence of 
things. Just so, the authenticity of the sacred volume is assumed 
at the outset, when it is admitted as a revelation and a rule of faith. 
And yet you demand a proof of its being authentic, &c. from itself, 
or deny its being the alone the rule of faith! Suppose an infidel were to 
argue thus with you: “Your revelation demands of you a belief of a 
Deity, but by the Bible alone the fact of his existence cannot be 
proved, therefore your revelation is defective.” You would laugh 
him to scorn. How then will Protestants regard your application of 
the same reasoning to overturn their rule of faith? Admitting it to 
be, as you do, a Revelation from God, you ask for that proof of its 
authenticity, ike. which is inseparably connected with the presup- 
posed in the very existence of a revelation! Your latent meaning 
mail that paragraph is, that we need the church to tell us what is 
Bible and what is not. Thus, by the true church, you would prove 
the authenticity of the Bible, And how do you verify the true 
church? By the marks — by the Bible. You will prove the church 
by the Bible, and then the Bible by the church; and thus your argu- 
ment will run in a constant circle, proving nothing but its own 
absurdity. 

V. Here you argue, (see the head,) that it was not universally 
known, until the end of the fifth century, what books were to be 
regarded as inspired Scriptures, — therefore, before that time, there 
was no infallible rule, or if there was, it was not the Bible alone. 
I reply, if there had been an infallible living judge of controversy in 
the church at this time, who was authorized as you say your church 
is, to settle what books were “inspired Scripture,” then how comes 
it that it was not universally known, which they were for five 
hundred years? Bat if there were no such infallible judge, what 
becomes of your rule of faith? You say in the 4th head, “we are 
bound as Christians to believe the Bible is authentic and inspired,” 
and again, that “the doctrines of Christianity have been regarded by 
the Catholic Church, from the beginning, as fixed stars in the firma- 
ment of revelation.” “She has ascertained and certified their ex- 
istence, from the commencement,” &c ; therefore it follows, that the 
church knew from the beginning which books were authentic, and 
taught (as one of her doctrines) which those books were. When 
you say then, they were not known, you contradict yourself. If 
you cover your retreat under the word “universally,” then either 
the church concealed what she knew, or wherever the church was 
known, this was known. But I deny that there was this uncertainty 


CONTROVERSY. 


17 


about the canon of Scripture until the end of the fifth century. Some 
contended that it was settled by the apostle John. Origen, A. D. 120, 
Busebius in 315, Athanasius in 315, Cyril, 340, Council of Laodicea, 
364, See. &c. give catalogues of the inspired books. Most of them 
give an exact catalogue of the New Testament. Some who were 
certain as to the rest, were doubtful only as to four of these many 
books. In the mean time, the churches had “all the books;” and 
these doubts of some, did not make it less truly the real and full 
rule. How strange then, that you should speak of the Bible at 
large, as uncertain until near the end of the fifth century, when all 
the books of the Old, and all of the New Testament, except four, 
were certainly known before the death of the Apostle John. As to 
those who lived before the “art of printing was invented,” and those 
who “cannot read,” it is an unworthy quibble; for I suppose you 
will not deny, that in each case, they could as well understand the 
fallible interpretation of Scripture by Protestant preacher, as the 
fallible interpretation of our decrees of councils, bulls, &c. by a 
Romanist? 

VI. and VII. You say the Bible alone, or the Bible and private 
interpretation, have settled no disputes, but promoted them. 'They 
have also promoted heresy. But the infallible rule of faith is design- 
ed to settle disputes and promote unity. 'Therefore the Bible alone 
cannot be the infallible rule of faith. Poor Bible ! what a transgres- 
sor thou hast been ! How right was it for the Council of Trent to 
lay thee on the shelf! To all you say on this point, I answer, your 
rule has worked worse than ours, to say the least, for you have 
either to put an end to disputes by force, and so wanted not a rule 
but a ruler, or driven off church after church, and nation after nation 
from you. How did you settle the dispute with the Waldenses 
and Albigenses? How with the Greek Church, and how with the 
Reformers? Again, you argue from the abuse of a thing against its 
perfection: now when we say the Bible is an infallible rule of faith, 
and competent to settle disputes, we mean that it is a sufficient, not 
a compulsory means — nor do we say that it is incapable of abuse. 
Will you say this of your rule ? Has it not been abused ? When 
a rule is abused, it is the fault of men, not of the Bible. This you 
admit, when you say that an infallible rule must “give to those who 
abide by its decision an infallible certainty,” &c. So we say. — 
But what if they will not abide ? Is there any remedy ? I know of 
none but the Inquisition, and the like. If you are willing to take this 
ground, you are welcome to it. Once more — your argument would 
lead to this, that as no rule which can be abused is infallible, and 
some men will abuse the best rules, therefore a rule cannot be in- 
fallible. 

Your Vlllth and IXth heads are only changes hung on the same 
fallacious reasoning exposed above. (The reader will please ex- 
amine them.) The sum of the argument is this — “Do you not 
admit, that in holding Presbyterian doctrine, you may be in error; if 
so, what confidence have you in the infallibility of your guides — 
then you are compelled to "admit, by your own rule, that you may 
be wrong, and the Unitarian right.” I answer, do you not admit 
3 


18 


CONTROVERSY . 

that you may be wrong in finding out y our infallible church ? Then 
what certainty is there, and what confidence have you in the infalli- 
bility of your guides? Again — Joannah Southcoate claim to be 
infallible — and so the Shakers: now, as they use your rule of faith 
no less than Unitarians ours, may they not be right and you wrong? 
Yet on such a logic hangs your argument. 

In youiTXth head you apply the above. You suppose four Pres- 
byterian preachers, (and include me in the number,) one becomes 
Unitarian — another Swedenborgian — and I, happy honoured I, be- 
come a Papist, by light breaking in upon my daik soul. Now we 
must of course disperse, and join these various people. Hence, as 
under our rule we may do this, that rule “ works destruction ,” and 
is not infallible. Let me consummate this felicitous illustration. We 
are told in Genebrard’s Chronicles, A. D. 901, “that for 150 years, 
fifty Popes had been apostate, rather than apostolical.” There is 
then no lack of subjects. For the first, take Pope Liberius, who 
became Arian ; then Pope Honorius, a Heretic, who was condemned 
by a council; Pope Marcellinus, an Idolater. You, Sir, may be 
the fourth — with your faith unshaken, and on the high road to the 
Vatican and the Triple crown. Now ought notone of these to join 
the Arians ; another the Swedenborgians; another the Gentile Idola- 
ters ; and would not this “work destruction?” Yet this is the ope- 
ration of your rule, or at least it is in spite of your rule, which must 
therefore, on your own reasoning, be defective. I could apply your 
argument to your councils too; but 1 forbear. 

X. The argument on certainty, I have answered in the introduction. 

And now, Sir, having waded through the queries, which you have 
so magisterially propounded to me, I would propose to your consi- 
deration the following difficulties, to which I also expect a prompt 
reply. 

1. You prove your church infallible as a judge of controversies, bv 
true notes or marks which are very numerous. They embrace sanctity 
of doctrine, agreement in doctrine with the primitive church, &c. &c. 
It presupposes much knowledge of Scripture to find them out— 
Now you must find all these notes, to get at the true church; and in 
here to find the infallible judge. The question then is, are you infalli- 
ble in finding out these notes? It is not by private, or at least fallible 
judgment? Then as your infallibility is built on fallible judgment, is 
it not an empty name, and a presumptuous pretension? 

2. As to the judge of controversies, you say in the eighth page, 
“would it not be absurd to say, thot the laws of this commonwealth 
expound their own meaning, without a judge?” Now let us look at this 
illustration. The judge in the commonwealth must be of neither 
party. But your judge of controversies is always a party in the case, 
unless you contend with some, that he is above law. The civil jud^e 
binds not the conscience; for though he deprived me of my property, 
the law does not require me to think with him; but your judge lords it 
over the conscience , which none can rightly do but God. The civil 
judge is easily found out; but can you identity your infallible judge? 
Is it the Pope, or a general council, or both united, or the church at 
large? What would a civil judge ba worth, whom nobody could find? 


controversy. 


1 $ 

*• You say in your second page, that your church is "not hostile 
to the dissemination and perusal of the Holy Scriptures.” Yet the 
4th Rule of the. “Expurgatory Index,” under the authority of the 
Council of Trent, and the Pope, says in so many words, “Inasmuch 
as it is manifest from experience, that if the Holy Bible translated into 
the vulgar tongue, 5e indiscriminately allowed to every one, the teme- 
rity of men will cause more evil than good to rise from it” — and it 
goes on to say, that permission may be given in writing by bishops 
or inquisitors, to such as priests or confessors recommend, to read the 
Bible , if translated by Catholic (Roman) authors. — “But if any one 
have the presumption to read or possess it, without such a written 
permission, he shall not receive absolution , until he has delivered up 
such Bible,” &,c. Booksellers selling to men without a license were 
liable to penalties. The liberty of the press also is directly violated 
in that same document. Not only in Rome, but “in other places,” the 
vicar or inquisitor or other authorised persons must examine, approve, 
and permit a book to be published ! Does this seem like friendship to 
the discussion of the Scriptures and of general knowledge? 

4. Your living judge of controversies being infallible, your system 
ought to be uniform and unchangeable, admitting of no new doctrines 
and no contradictions — and this you allow, when you say, “Your doc- 
trines have been from the beginning, as fixed stars in the firmaments 
of Revelation,” and the church “knew them,” by the infallible rule 
of judgment “ from the beginning .” I give only a few examples of 
heresy and variation, an innovation in doctrine, to disprove this as- 
sertion. 

In the fourth century, Liberius, the Pope, signed the Arian creed — 
and the great body of the clergy became Jlrian . Hilary called his 
confession the “Arian Perfidy.” Arianism was sanctioned by the 
Papal Church, that is by the Pontiff’, a general council, and the coL 
lective clergy. I need not refer to Honorius, who, in the seventh 
century, was an acknowledged and condemned heretic. 

As to the Tope’s supremacy, there are no less than three systems 
in your church. Some contend for a mere presidency; such are Du 
Pin, Rigathius, Filaster, Gibert, and Paolo. The councils of Pisa, 
Constance and Basil, sustained this view. Others make him an un- 
limited monarch, civil and ecclesiastical. This is the Italian school, 
and the Jesuits agree with them. The councils of Florence, Lateran, 
and Trent, patronised this system. Another system set him bv the 
side of God. The canon law in the gloss, denominates the Pope, 
‘the Lord God.’ Bellarmine says, [4. 5.] “Si papa erraret, prfeci- 
piendo vitia,” &c. “If the Pope should err in commanding vices, 
and prohibiting virtues, the church would be bound to believe vices to 
be virtues, and virtues to be vices.” These views were largely pa- 
tronized. 

As to the seat of infallibility in the church, there is neither union 
nor uniformity. There are no less than four systems on this subject, 
stoutly advocated in different ages, by writers, popes and councils; and 
your church is not now united upon it. One system places infallibly' 
in the Pope; another in a general council; a third in the- two united ; 
and the fourth in the church collective. 


20 


CONTROVERSY. 


You are not agreed among yourselves even which are the general 
councils. As to imagine worship, there are three parties. (Bellarmine 
2. 20.) One party allows the use of them, — another the lower wor- 
ship^ — a third, the real divine worship of them. The council of Nice, 
says Bellarmine, agreed with the second. The ups and downs of 
images in the church, for a whole century, I need not here detail. 

As to to the validity of oaths. — The third general council of the La- 
teran, 16th Canon, says, “An oath contrary to ecclesiastical utility 
is perjury — not an oath.” Labb. 13. 426. The 4th Laterean, a ge- 
neral council, in A. D. 1215, 3d canon, “freed the subjects of such 
sovereigns as embraced heresy, from their fealty.” Labb. 13. 934. — 
The guilty celebrity of the Council of Constance, I need not dwell 
on. — Delahogue, Tract, de Euch. p. 214. art. 2, says, that denying the 
cup to the laity did not begin until the 12th century. Now, it is an 
approved doctrine of the Church of Rome. 

Lastly — In the letter from Bononia, by the three bishops to Pope 
Julius the 3d., September 20th, 1553, “on the way to establish the 
Church of Rome,” are these confessions: “This is a downright Lu- 
theran maxim, that it is not lawful to depart in the least degree from 
the things that were used among the Apostles. But who of us doth 
not every day often depart from them P Indeed in our churches we 
scarcely retain the least shadow of doctrine and discipline which 
flourished in the times of the Apostles; but have brought in quite ano- 
ther of our own.” (More of this hereafter.) See Preservative against 
Popery, vol. 1. p. 88. 

Amid such heresies, variations, corruptions, and novelties of doc- 
trine and worship, where is your infallible judge of controversies? 

5. Your rule of faith requires you, as your oath of office binds you, 
to interpret “unwritten traditions” and the Bible, according to the 
“unanimous consent of the fathers.” Now, I ask, is there any such 
unanimous consent? If not, how can your rule be applied? If there 
be, will you make it appear. 

6. The Apocryphal books, as we call them, were excluded from 
the canon of the Jews. They were not recognised as canonical by 
Christ or his apostles; nor by the earliest fathers. They do not claim 
to be inspired — they are unworthy of credit, except as ecclesiastical 
histories. Yet you introduce them into the canon; what proof have 
you of their claim to this? 

7. What right has the Church of Rome to make “unwritten tradi- 
tions” a part of the rule of faith? Why have they been left unwritten 
if they are known? Can she trace this mass of human inventions up 
to the teachings of the Lord and his inspired apostles? If not’ how 
can you require us to believe them? Why not record them, that we 
may know them, and that they may be preserved? 

8. Your rule of faith usurps the prerogative of Jesus Christ, “sit- 
ting in the temple of God,” “as God.” For God alone can dictate 
what we are to believe. He tells us, “to call no man master.” “If 
we must believe what the church believes,” then w r e are no longer at 
liberty to inquire, and think, or even believe; for belief is no evidence , 
not dictation. 

9. Your judge has taught, "as infallible doctrines, things which vio- 


21 


CONTROVERSY. 


late the natural senses , arul thus undermine the evidence from mira- 
cles in support of revelation itself — as for example — transubstantia- 
tion. It is also abhorrent to true religion not to say every reverent 
feeling, that a priest can make his^God, then'sacrifice him, then give 
him to the people, then worship him, and then eat him. 

10. Finally the system which includes an infallible living judge of 
controversies, to guide us in matters of religion, and to regulate not 
only faith, but worship and morals, ought not to be corrupt in its ten- 
dency or tolerate corruptions in morals and manners. Now if I can 
show 7 this to be the tendency of your rule in operation, it must prove 
the rule not only vicious but ruinous, and therefore not infallible. I 
will refer you t?o a memorial letter written to Paul 3d, by nine distin- 
guished prelates of Rome, England, Brechdusium, Verona, &c. &c., 
shortly before th e Reformation, on the state of the Church and the 
need of Reformation. They mention abuses as follows — Ordaining 
uneducated youth, of evil manners — Simony, as being general — Pas- 
tors withdrawn from their flocks, which were intrusted to hirelings — 
Clergymen guilty of sins and then by exemption from penalty — The 
orders of the Heligious so degenerate that monasteries ought to be 
abolished — Sacrileges committed with the nuns in most monasteries 
— Rome especially corrupt, though the “mother of the church, and the 
mistress of churches.” “In fine,” they say, “The name of Christ is 
forgotten by the nations, and by us the clergy, and the vengeance of 
God which we deserve is ffcady to fall on us!” I ask if this be the 
fruit of infallibility, or could be patronized by a living infallible 



;e? 


Now , sir, if you will apply your telescope to the Roman heavens, and 
narrowly survey the permutations of the “stars” you boast of as ‘fixed,’ 
you will find many a shifting planet, and many a star, which in apos- 
tolic days rose upon the church, quenched from your horizon. 

And these are the things which led "those few individuals” as you 
call them, to assert that your church was corrupt and indeed reform. 
And was there not a cause? 

It sounds not a little strange, in the light of these facts, which mark 
the growing corruption and successive collapse of your unchangeable 
church to hearyou talking of the "Presbyterian church falling apart, 
under the pressure of private interpretation !” Under what is yours 
falling? — We are willing to trust the Presbyterian church in the 
hands of Jesus Chrst. Truth and liberty is her blessed banner. 


Yours, respectfully, 


John Breckinridge, 


CONTROVERSY. No. III. 


RULES. 

The undersigned agreeing to have an amicable discussion of the great point* 
of religious controversy, between Protestants and Roman Catholics, do hereby 
hind themselves to the observance of the following rules : 

1. The parties shall write and publish, alternately, in the weekly religious 
papers, called the Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic paper, to be furnished 
by the first of January. *lt being understood that the communications shall be 
published after the following plan:— One party opening the first week, the other 
party replying the next week, and every piece to be republished in the imme- 
diately succeeding number of the Roman Catholic paper. The commmunica. 
tions not to exceed four columns of the Presbyterian, nor to continue beyond 
six months, without consent of parties. 

2. The parties agree that there is an infallible Rule of Faith established by 
Christ to guide us in matters of Religion, for the purpose of determining dis- 
putes in the Church of' Christ. 

3. They moreover agree, that after giving their views of the Rule of Faith, 
they shall proceed to discuss the question, “Is the Protestant religion, the re- 
ligion of Christ?” 

4. The parties agree respectively, to adhere strictly to the subject of discus- 
sion, for the time being, and to admit.no second question, until the first shall 
have been exhausted.' Each party shall be the judge when he is done with a 
subject, and shall be at liberty to occupy his time with a second topic, when he 
is done with the first, leaving to the other party the liberty of continuing to re- 
view the abandoned topic, as long as he shall choose; subject, however, to be 
answered, if he introduce new matter. 

5. Mr. Hughes to open the discussion, and Mr. Breckinridge to follow, ac- 
cording to the dictates of his own judgment. 

JOHN BRECKINRIDGE, 

JNO. HUGHES. 

Philadelphia, December 14th, 1832. 


RULE OF FAITH. 

Philadelphia , February 14, 1833. 

To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 

Rev. Sir , — On the evening of the 9th instant, I had the pleasure 
of receiving your reply, after a lapse of eighteen clays from that, 
on which I placed my first letter in the hands of the Editor, with a 
request that he would furnish you with a copy as soon as possible. — 
Our readers were generally disappointed at your not answering in 
order, according to the time prescribed in our rules. It was admit- 
ted, however, that you had reasons for procrastinating : and many 
of those, who have never reflected on the difficulty of the task, ac- 
counted for the delay, by supposing that you meant to overwhelm 
your adversary in the energy of the onset — that you would throw 
the whole strength of your cause, and of your nund into your first 
paper, and thus ensure a prompt and triumphant vindication of the 
Protestant rule of faith — a vindication, whicn would not only refute, 
but exterminate, all the arguments that had been* cr that might be 


CONTROVERSY. 


25 


raised against it. For my own part I had no such anticipations.-- 
But I must confess, that 1 did expect something more energetic and 
to the purpose. I have read your letter carefully; and although you 
attempt to neutralize my reasoning by recriminations and glosses, 
which are ingenious enough, still I am utterly unable to discover any 
thing, that reaches the difficulty, or approaches the character of manly 
argument. Before I proceed to review those portions of it which re- 
late to the subject of discussion “for the time being,” (see rules,) I 
shall make a few observations on certain passages, which are, in my 
opinion, objectionable, on other grounds, besides their being foreign 
to the present topic of controversy. 

The first is your use of the words “Papist and Romanist.” We 
learn from history, that the ancient Athenian laws specified neither 
prohibition, nor penalty, for the crime of parricide : — the legislator 
believing, that the commission of it was impossible. Influenced by 
a similar supposition, it never occurred to me, in fixing the laws of 
this controversy, to stipulate for the use of courteous language. Your 
official standing, the clerical character, and the courtesies of the age 
in which we live, were pledges, in my mind, that you would use no 
other. Iliad, however, in conversation, informed you, that the ap- 
pellation by which we choose to be called, is Catholics, or Roman 
Catholics;- — and I do not perceive what good feelings are to be gra- 
tified on your side, by preferring to either of these, an epithet known 
to be offensive, and which adds nothing, either to sense or argument. 
Besides, you should, in my opinion, recollect, that for nearly a hun- 
dred years past, the world has laughed at the ludicrous picture of 
Presbyterianism, drawn by the Protestant pencils of Dean Swift and 
the author of Iludibras. If I wished to employ unpalatable epithets, 
I have only to consult their pages. But they are useless to any cause, 
and I allude to the matter, merely to advise the reader, that I shall 
receive the appellation of “Papist, Romanist, &c.” at your hand, with 
the express understanding, that they are nicknames. 

The next passage, which I consider you to have treated in a man- 
ner unbecoming the pen of a clergyman, as well as the importance of 
the subject, is that in which you allude to transubstantiation. I do not 
mean now to violate the order of proceeding, by saying one word in 
proof of that doctrine. It is a doctrine, however, of great antiquity; 
admitted even by Protestant writers, to be older, by many hundred 
years, than the sect or denomination of which you are a minister : it 
is a doctrine, sacred with the vast majority of the Christian world at 
the present day, and which they believe to be as old as Christianity ; 
— and 1 submit to your own reflection, and to that of our readers, 
whether such a doctrine was not entitled to a more grave and dignified 
notice, than that which you have been pleased to take of it — in telling 
us “that a priest can make his God, then sacrifice him, then given 
to the people, then worship him, and then eat him.” There is a 
tripping levity of phrase in this passage, which your friends will re- 
gret for your own sake, quite as much as I can do for any other 
motive. Be assured, Rev. Sir, that Catholics, however incredible it 
may appear, claim the possession and exercise of reason, no less 
than Protestants. If we are in darkness, you may charitably undertake 


24 


CONTROVERSY. 


to enlighten us; but it must be by something more solid and perma- 
nent, than the flash of abortive wit and ridicule, with which you have 
thought proper to visit the doctrine of transubstantiation. Besides, 
I would not have the infidel, who regards Christianity, as you do the 
“real presence,” to derive any accession of materials to his stock of 
sarcasm, from the pages of this controversy. Volney has an argu- 
ment against Christianity, bearing so near a resemblance to yours, that 
did we not know the difference from other sources, it would be diffi- 
cult to say, whether it is the infidel, that has imitated the Christian, or 
the Christian, that has borrowed from the infidel: — So much are they 
like children of the same family. 

Volney is exposing the absurdity of belief in the trinity, the incar- 
nation and divinity of Jesus Christ. Volney was an infidel , and 
we are not surprised to see him indulging a vein of humour. “You 
make your God,” says he, “the well -beloved Son, born without a 
mother; and then, as old as his father; and then the son of a woman, 
who is at. once a virgin and a mother, and then you have him kil- 
led, for the benefit of mankind.” 1 shall pass from this part of 
my subject, by asking you, whether Volney has not been quite as 
witty, pungent, and conclusive against Christ’s divinity, as you have 
been against transubstantiation? 

The proverb says that there is a time for all things; and our rules 
of controversy lay it down, as most conducive to order , to treat of 
but one thing at one time. We are now, Reverend Sir, discussing the 
“Rule of Faith,” and “the parties agree respectively, to adhere strict- 
ly to the subject of discussion for the time being, and to admit no se- 
cond question, until the first shall have been exaustcd” With the 
recollection of this rule fresh on my memory, judge of my surprise at 
beholding the host of “second questions,” which you have contrived 
to marshal into the very van of the contest. “The Expurgatory In- 
dex,'” — “Pope Liberius.” — “The Arian heresy.” — “The Pope’s Su- 
premacy.” — “Seat of infallibility.” — '“General Councils.” — “Validity 
of oaths.” — “Letters from Bononia by three Bishops.” — •"Traditions.” 
— “Apocryphal Books,” &c. 

Stiphelumque, Bromumque 

Antimachumque, Helimumque, Securiferumque 

Pyracmon. 

These subjects maybe more serviceable in the rear as a body of 
reserve. You will thus have an opportunity of reviewing , and 
preparing them for action, when their turn shall come. There 
is, however, one topic, which has a closer affinity to the subject now 
under consideration, and which demands a more proximate attention. 
It is your objections to the Catholic rule of faith. Now, the state 
of the question, as laid down in my first letter, required of you not 
to attack my rule, by anticipation, but to defend your own ; which, 
by the laws of the controversy I was authorized to investigate. I 
had placed the result of that investigation before the public, in a few 
brief, plain, but solid and practical arguments, which, I was well 
aware, it would require something more than the female theology of 
“Father Clement,” to shake from their foundations. But, before I 


CONTROVERSY. 




proceed to review our attempt at a reply to them, I take occasion to 
assure you, that at a proper time, I shall defend the Catholic rulo 
with positive arguments, quite as strong, as those already advanced in 
opposition of the Protestant principle. 

In the mean time, the reader will please to bear in mind, that 
Protestants profess to be guided by one rule of faith, and that Catho- 
lics not only profess to be, but are in effect, guided by another. — 
Now, as you have agreed with me, that Christ established one , and 
only one, rule of faith, “for the purpose of guiding us in matters of 
religion, and determining disputes in his church,” — it follows, as a 
necessary consequence, that either the Catholics or the Protestants 
have forsaken that true rule, and put themselves under the guidance 
of a false one, which Christ did not establish, and which is there- 
fore, inadequate either to direct us in matters of religion or to deter- 
mine our disputes. Deeming it more conducive to clearness and 
perspicuity, to give either rule a separate trial, I began by arraigning 
that principle which has been adopted by Protestants. I stated that 
the “Bible alone,” as each individual understands it, is the Protestant 
rule of faith, and you have not disputed the correctness of the state- 
ment. Now if you prove that this rule was actually established by 
Christ — that it guides those who have adopted it in matters of re- 
ligion — that it determines their disputes, you will thereby simplify 
the inv estigation, and your friends may congratulate you on an easy 
triumph when you come to examine the Catholic branch of the in- 
quiry. But if, on the other hand, I prove by unanswerable argument, 
that the Protestant rule fails on all these heads, then it will follow, 
by the very tenor of our agreement, that the Catholic rule must be 
the true rule appointed by Christ. This, however, I pledge myself 
to prove by positive arguments, when the question shall have come 
fairly under discussion. At present, it is the duty of my position to 
urge those facts and arguments, which overthrow the Protestant rule 
of faith — of yours, to answer them. I wish it to be clearly under- 
stood, that l will not go aside of the question now under considera- 
tion, to answer any objection even against the Catholic rule of faith, 
until the present topic shall have been entirely disposed of. 

The first sentence that arrests my attention in the foreground of 
your reply, is the startling declaration that you “own no judge of 
controversies but God ” Do you not, Reverend Sir, perceive how 
flatly this proposition contradicts the admission of every rule of 
faith? If Christ has established a rule of faith to “determine, dis- 
putes,” — surely you will “ow \\” that rule as a judge of controversy 
— unless you can discover a distinction between “judging controver- 
sies” and “determining disputes!” — for my part, I can see no dis- 
tinction whatsoever. You admit, on the one hand, an infallible rule 
appointed for the express purpose of determining disputes; and, on 
the other, almost in the same breath, you “disown” every judge of 
controversy but God ! Proteetants usually profess to acknovvledge 
theword ot' God as the judge of controversy; and, as each minister 
possesses the right and the talent of making the word of God decided 
in favour of his own doctrines, the principle, I should think, allows 
ample latitude for the irresponsible rovings of private opinion. But 
l 


CONTROVERSY. 


?« 

for you> it seems, that even the word of God is too restrictive;— since 
you will “own no judge of controversies but God himself.” It is 
true that he is the ultimate judge of all things, but to say that he is 
the immediate judge of controversy, by whom “disputes in the Church 
of Christ are to be determined;” — is an assertion that will be found 
novel in the annals of polemical disputation. 

In my introduction, speaking in reference to private interpretation, 
I quoted the words of St. Peter, in which he says that “no pro- 
phecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation,” and con- 
trasted them with the practice of Protestants, who, in fact, make all 
Scripture and prophecy of Scripture, of every private interpretation. 
By this remark, I intended simply to show, that, if St. Peter meant 
what his language so obviously expresses, he at least was not disposed 
to leave the Scripture, or the prophecy of Scripture, subject to the 
arbitrary or capricious interpretation of each private individual. But 
it seems I was mistaken; — and you. Reverend Sir, are kind enough 
to write nearly a whole column of explanation, to instruct me, and our 
readers generally, how we are to understand the text. That you 
felt the necessity of giving this explanation is a timely hint, that either 
the Scripture is not, after all, so plain as you are accustomed on other 
occasions to assert, or else (what amounts to the same) that we are 
not competent to understand its meaning. But unless you claim for 
yourself, either mental superiority, or some small portion of that in- 
fallibility which you deny to the whole church, 1 can see no reason 
why you should pretend to understand the passage better than my- 
self, or than any of our readers. You say that “it is important to 
be noticed by me that it is the prophecy of Scripture, and not the Scrip- 
ture that is obscure.” Then, you admit that prophecy, at least, is 
obscure. This is indeed a concession. But pray is not “prophecy” 
a part of Scripture ? and if it be, then we have your own authority 
for believing that some part of Scripture is obscure. You next urge 
that, by my interpretation the apostle is made to argue thus, “the 
Scriptures are infallibly revealed or inspired, and ye do well that ye 
take heed to them, therefore they are obscure, too obscure, for private 
explanation.” The premises, dear Sir, are St. Peter’s, but the con- 
clusion is your own. “The voice, indeed, is the voice of Jacob, but 
the hands are the hands of Esau.” I would find a better conclusion 
in the apostle’s own words, “therefore, (as no prophecy of Scripture 
is of any private interpretation) you will not wrest it, as some do also 
the other Scriptures, to your own destruction.” 2 Pet. iii. 16. I am 
not disposed to dwell longer on this subject, but I must remark that, 
to my mind, your explanation of the passage appears quite as obscure 
as the text itself. 

As to the Latin quotation from the Vulgate, it means precisely 
what is expressed in the text as quoted above, and for which, I as- 
sure you, I am not at all indebted to what you call “our English trans- 
lation.” 

As all the rest of your introduction consists of premature objections 
against a rule of faith, which is not yet under consideration, you will 
excuse me, if I pass them over, with a promise to refute them in their 
proper places. When we come to the Catholic rule, I shall show y-ou 


CONTROVERSY. 


2 ? 


how we know the true church, how the Scriptures designate her; how 
we solve the vicious circle; how the true church is distinguished by 
her divine characteristics from all would-be churches; — and a great 
many other things with which it is not wonderful to find Protestants 
rather unacquainted. At present you are called upon to vindicate the 
Protestant rule ot faith; and instead of defending your own position, 
you attack ours. It seems to be the height of your ambition to show 
that the Catholic system involves as many difficulties as the Protest- 
ant system: but even if you succeeded, the only consequence that 
would follow is, that neither possesses the true rule. 

Now for the arguments : — 

I. My first argument against the Protestant rule of faith was, that 
Christ never appointed it. The reasons by which 1 supported this 
argument were simple facts. It is a fact, that the Bible alone, inter- 
preted by each individual for himself, is the (nominal) rule of faith, 
adopted by Protestants. It is a fact,that Christ never appointed this 
rule; — because he never wrote any part of the Old or New Testa- 
ment himself ; — he never commanded any part to be written by his 
apostles. It is a fact, that what constitutes the Bible (according to 
the Protestant canon of Scripture) was not complete, until the close 
of the first century; and consequently, it is a fact, that the Protestant 
rule of faith did not exist in the first century, and is therefore not 
the rule which Christ established: — I call upon you to deny one sin- 
gle proposition here stated as a fact. 

To supply this deficiency, you are pleased to assign an origin to the 
Protestant rule of faith, which, while it corresponds with these facts, 
relinquishes all pretensions to that rule’s having been established by 
Christ. You assert that the “Old Testament, 5 ’ with the instructions 
of Christ and his Apostles, constitute, the rule of faith, from the de- 
mise of the synagogue, until just before the death of the last Apos- 
tle, when the “entire New Testament was written;” and when, as 
you suppose, the Protestant rule of faith went into operation. Your 
clerical brethren will, no doubt, admire your candour in admitting 
that the Protestant rule of faith, so far from having been established by 
Christ, had not so much a3 an existence until the close of the first 
century; and the Jews will feel complimented, by the acknowledg- 
ment that the “Old Testament” was placed in the. same chair of au- 
thority with Christ and his Apostles, for the purpose of determining 
the doctrines of Christianity, during the same period. Either admis- 
sion, is a concession of my argument, that the Bible alone is not the 
rule of faith established by Christ. 

II. My second argument was, that “as Protestants boast of believ- 
ing nothing but what is contained in the Bible, they are bound to show 
some texts of Scripture, to prove the Bible alone is the rule of faith 
established by Christ.” This is the fundamental principle of Protes- 
tanism. If this is not a divinely revealed tenet of religion, then it 
follows, that the Protestant rule of faith is precisely what I said of 
it, in my former letter, a mere ‘assumption,’ — a thing taken for grant- 
ed, without proof or examination. It is easy to perceive in your an- 
swer, that you were not insensible r to the strength of this position, 
nor to the feebleness of its opposition:— -hence, instead of assailing it. 


CONTROVERSY. 


38 

with that superiority of evidence which Protestants associate with 
their belief, you go round it, asking yourself questions and answering 
them : “what then, you say, are the Scriptures?” Permit me again. 
Rev. Sir, to give the answer. They are the ivritten word of God. — 
Are they the only rule of faith? they themselves, from the beginning 
of Genesis to the end of Revelation do not say that they are. Why 
then do Protestants believe, that the Bible alone is the rule of faith, 
when the Bible itself does not say so? I leave you, Rev. Sir, to an- 
swer this question. 

But in fact your language indicates an abandonment of the under- 
taking. You say ingeniously, that the “presumption from the admit- 
ted fact of the Bible’s being a revelation is, that it is the ruie of faith.” 
Now I ask you, can that be the rule of faith appointed by Christ, 
which, according to your own acknowledgment, rests upon a mere 
“presumption?” A presumption is an unequivocal basis for the Pro- 
testant’s belief in time, and his hope in eternity ! ! 

As to your subdivisions under this head, they all belong to another 
part of the subject, and certainly do not prove, that the Protestant 
rule of faith is authorised by any single text of the sacred writing.. It 
is true you attempt to strengthing the “presumption” by a text of 
Scripture; — not from the Gospel, but from the prophet Isaiah viii. 20. 
“To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to them, 
it is because there is no light in them.” The prophet in this verse, 
was not pointing out a rule of faith, but reminding the people that it 
was forbidden in the land, (Deut. xviii. 10.) to consult false oracle s 
which was natural enough. But to infer that this text, constitutes a 
divine warrant for the Protestant rule of faith, is indulging private 
interpretations, with a vengeance. The next passage that is brought 
forward, is that in which St. Paul approves Timothy, (2 Tim. iii. 15, 
17.) for his knowledge of the Scripture. You first quote the passage 
entire — and then, as if conscious of its inconclusiveness as to the 
Protestant rule of faith, you take it apart, and weave, from the frag- 
ments, a chain of reasoning favourable to your “presumption,” but in 
which, be it noted, that for every link furnished by the Apostle, two 
are added, of your own fabrication. Allow me to quote a specimen. 
“The Scriptures are able to make wise unto salvation,” says the text ; 
“without any human judge or help,” adds Mr. Breckinridge. But, 
Sir, if this addition be true, what will become of the. clergy, who live 
judging “and helping” to explain the meaning of Scripture. Will 
they not say, in the words of another text, “a man’s enemies are these 
of his household.” But, so far as the Scripture is concerned, it is 
manifest that the “presumption,” on which the Protestant rule of faith 
depends, must remain what it is. 

III. My third argument was,— that the Bible alone, is a misnomer 
in theology,— in as much, as we can know nothing of it except 
through the medium of interpretation. And, as this medium is, in all 
cases, confessedly fallible, according to your rule of faith, it follows 
necessarily, that no Protestant can be certain, whether the doctrines 
which he believes, and on which he grounds his hope ©f salvation, 
are contained in the Bible. Be assured, Rev. Sir, that our reader* 
will find something mora “profound” in this argument that, you hare 


CONTROVERSY. 


2 $ 


seen fit to acknowledge. You say, “my God, my Bible, and my mind 
are supposed in my rule of faith:” precisely,' — and for that reason it 
is, that the opinions and prejudices of your, “mine?,” receive a falla- 
cious anthority with the people, by being put forth and accepted, as 
emanating from the pure word of God, the Bible alone ! Has not the 
Episcopalian, the Baptist, the Methodist, the Moravian, the Sweden- 
borgian, the Unitarian, the Arminian, and the Universalist, each “his 
God, his Bible, and his mind?”~and will you for a moment, pretend to 
say that they are guided by the rule of faith which you and they 
equally profess to follow, the Bible alone ? It is not the Bible alone; 

• — but the Bible, twisted into harmony with the Confession of Faith, — • 
viewed through the Westminster Telescope, — which constitutes your 
rule of faith. As to the silly argument which you are pleased to as- 
cribe to me, under this head, I must beg leave to disown it. It is the 
child of Presbyterian “logic” and is quite too young to sustain my 
“claim to infallibility.” 

IV. My fourth argument was, that the Protestant rule of faith actu- 
ally undermines the authority of the Scriptures, by extinguishing the 
proofs of their authenticity and inspiration , and consequently termi- 
nates in moral suicide. Just imagine to yourself an ordinary will or 
testament, written but twenty years ago; — purporting to be the last 
will and testament of a wealthy deceased relative, and designating 
you as heir, but without either signature or probate; — and ask your- 
self what it would be worth? Could such a document establish its 
own authenticity ? And yet, this is precisely the situation to which 
the Protestant rule of faith reduces the Scriptures, in rejecting the 
collateral testimony of the church, by which, and by which alone, 
their authenticity could have been established. St. Augustine, of 
whom Presbyterians are sometimes want to speak with respect, declar- 
ed that it was the testimony of the church which moved him to believe 
in the Scriptures. But now, the order of belief is “reformed.” Men 
pick up (pardon the phrase) the sacred volume, as they find it, floating 
on the sea of two thousand years, and by one great, but gratuitous , 
act of belief, which flings all intermediate church authority and tradi- 
tion to the winds, they say, “the Bible is the Bible, and we are its in- 
terpreters,” every man for himself. 

Is it not a fact, Rev. Sir, that Protestantism rejects tradition, and 
adopts the Bible alone as its rule of faith ? and if so, what other tes- 
timony is left in the universe to establish either the authenticity or in- 
spiration of the Bible? When you say, therefore, that my latent 
meaning in all this argument is, that we “need the church to tell us 
what is Bible and what is not,” you express my meaning exactly, and 
it is “latent” no longer. It is now incumbent on you to show how a 
Protestant, by the Bible alone, can be assured that the Scriptures are 
authentic and inspired. 

V. My fifth argument was, that Christ neither established nor in- 
tended the Bible alone to be the rule of faith, because it was not uni- 
versally known until the end of the fifth century, what books were to be 
regarded as inspired Scripture. The argument which you here rise 
against the church, for not making known what books were Scripture, 
until tha period referred to, I shall answer in its proper place. In tho 


so 


CONTROVERSY. 


mean time, the fact is an everlasting proof, that the Bible alone was* 
not the primitive rule of Christian faith. You have given authority 
indeed, to prove that some of the books of Scripture were certain; this 
1 never denied; but you have admitted, that even as late as the Coun- 
cil of Lodicea, 364, some were doubtful, and this is quite sufficient 
for my argument These some prove that the Protestant rule of faith 
was not completed, even “at the death of the last apostle,” nor for 
264 years afterwards, and consequently was not established by Christ: 
therefore it is a false rule. 

But besides, the condition of the world at that period, renders it 
absurd to suppose, that the Bible alone was even thought of as the 
rule of faith, 1st, Because of the multitude of languages into which it 
would have been necessary to translate the Bible: 2d, Because of the 
multitude of pens necessary to transcribe copies, so as to furnish be- 
lievers with a rule of faith: 3d, Because of the multitude of schools 
and schoolmasters necessary to teach the people of every nation how 
to read. And this is the argument which you call a “quibble !” 

VI. My sixth argument was, that as the true rule of faith was esta- 
blished “to determine disputes in the church of Christ ” it cannot be 
the Protestant rule, because , it is a fact y that, since the beginning of 
Christianity until the present hour, no dispute has ever been determin- 
ed by that rule, the Bible alone. Are you then still prepared to say, 
that a rule which, in no single instance, has accomplished the ends of 
its institution , is the rule appointed by Chrstr Does the Bible “deter- 
mine the dispute” between you and the Episcopalians on the institu- 
tion of bishops— between you and the learned editor of the Christian 
Index, on the subject of Infant Baptism — between you and the Uni- 
tarian on the divinity of Jesus Christ— between you and your Rev. 
Brethren of the Second Presbytery in your own church. 

VII. My seventh argument was, that the Protestant rule of faith, 
so far from “ determining any dispute ,” has given rise to all the here- 
sies that exist. By that rule the Bible is made to prove the divinity of 
Christ in one pulpit, and to overthrow the belief of it in another ; — to 
prove the eternity of torments, and the non-existence of hell. And 
can that be the rule appointed by Christ, which gives the same war- 
rant of authority to him that “plants, and to him that plucks up that 
which had been planted?” Is there a more palpable proof of this ar- 
gument, than the multitude of sects and the endless contradictions 
among Protestants, on the subjects of doctrine? After stating this ar- 
gument, you turn round and exclaimed, “Poor Bible, what a transgres- 
sor thou hast been!” and then avenge yourself on my reasoning, by 
saying that “our rule has worked worse than yours.” That is not 
now the question. Neither do I charge the “transgression” on the 
Bible, as you insinuate. God forbid! — But I assert boldly, that it is 
not the abuse, but the use of the Protestant rule of faith, which has 
produced all the sects that claim to be guided by it. It is indeed the 
abuse of the Bible; — but the regular use of the rule. 

VIII. My eighth argument was, that the Socinian has the same 
persuasion of being right in his belief, that you have in yours; and 
consequently, that you ar q both under the guidance of a principle, 
which can impart certainty to neither. But you yourself have admit- 


CONTROVERSY. 


31 


ted that the true rule of faith, “must give to those, who abide by its 
decision an infallible certainty :” and therefore, tejudice, your rule 
is not the true one: since, under its operation, the divinity of Jesus 
Christ, agitated between you and the Socinian, becomes a doubtful 
tenet, on which each of you may entertain or express his opinions , 
but nothing more. You have not even attempted to wrestle with this 
argument. 

As to the assertion that “Joanna Southcote and the Shakers use our 
rule of faith;” it is apiece of information, with which, 1 believe, history 
w r as altogether unacquainted before. I deny the fact, however; and L 
should be sorry to see my “logic hanging” on any such admission. 

IX. My ninth argument was, as you say, a practical illustration of 
the above. In order to make it clear, l suppose (by hypothesis) that 
the Presbyterian doctrine w-as the true doctrine of the Bible. I sup- 
posed four clergymen of that denomination, no matter who, in search- 
ing the Scriptures, to become persuaded that Unitarianism, IJniversal- 
ism, Swedenborgianism, or Catholicity is the religion of the Bible. 

1 ask you whether, in that case, they would not be bound before God, 
to quit the true religion of Christ, represented by the Presbyterian 
church, and embrace the heresies; — and whether, in doing this, they 
w'ould not act in strict conformity with the Protestant rule of faith? *1 
say they would: and I submit to your own reason, and that of our rea- 
ders, whether a rule, which would thus drive men from the true faith, 
and compel them to embrace heresy, is likely to be that infallible rule, 
“which Jesus Christ established to guide us in matter of religion, and 
to determine disputes in the church.” Genebrard’s “Chronicles” will 
not, I assure you, furnish you a solution of the difficulty. 

X. My tenth argument was, that the doctrines of Christ were de- 
livered to mankind as positive truths, facts about which there could 
be no grounds for disputation. That the object for which an infallible 
rule of faith was established, was to guard those eternal and unchange- 
able truths , of God, from being lost or confounded with the opinions 
of men. From this I argue, that the Protestant rule of faith is not the 
rule which Christ appointed: because every doctrine which is tried by 
the Protestant rule, is changed by the very test , from a fact or posi- 
tive truth, into a mere opinion . What is it that has so multiplied 
creeds among Protestants? What is it that has never ceased te evolve 
one sect out of another from the days of the “Reformation,” so called? 
It is the Protestant rule of faith. Why is it that Protestants are in 
everlasting controversies among themselves? It is becaue their rule 
of faith has robbed them , all alike , of certainty , as to the truth of their 
respective doctrines. What is the character of their warfare? It is 
the battle of opinions , about the meaning of the Bible, in which the 
privilege of private interpretation furnishes the Unitarian and the 
Universalist, with the same weapons which it bestows upon the Pres- 
byterian and Baptist. Now, sir, I again assert, that Christ never 
inculcated the belief of an opinion! 1 assert, on the other hand, that 
the human mind, under the influence of the Protestant rule of faith , 
never has held, and never can hold, one single doctrine of Christianity, 
except by the dubious tenure of opinion — and I challenge you to dis- 
prove either of these assertions. 


32 


CONTROVERSY, 


You say you have refuted this argument in your introduction, but 
I appeal even to our Protestant readers, whether, from the beginning to 
the end of your letter, they will not look in vain for a refutation. You 
have indeed, attempted to show that Catholics are equally destitute of 
certainty, but when we come to speak of the Catholic rule of faith, 
I shall show how easy it is to prove the contrary. 

As the rest of your letter is “about every thing,” you cannot ex- 
pect me to notice it, since we are both equally forbidden by our rules, 
to travel out of the subject “under discussion for the time being.” 
This is, perhaps, a circumstance which, on the whole, you ought not 
to regret; as it will give you an opportunity of rev iewing your au- 
thorities. Remember that Archbishop Usher was a Protestant, and 
yet you once quoted him to prove that Catholics are idolaters: — and, 
added, addressing the young lady in Baltimore, “of Usher’s authority 
among Romanists we need not speak.” However, you have since ex- 
plained it, as some strange mistake of printing. It was indeed very 
strange; and such mistakes ought to be guarded against in future, for 
your authorities, as well as arguments, are, henceforward, to be under 
the inspection of many a scrutinizing eye. But for the present, I shall 
not pluck out a single gem of authority, nor controvert a single pro- 
position in the multifarious matter of your epistle. When. the time 
shall have come, however, 1 bind myself to prove that several of the 
former are spurious, and several of the latter, false. 

The actual question now under consideration is. The Protestant 
rule of faith. It cries out for a defender — for one, who will prove 
it to i( infallible ; established by Christ ; competent to guide us 
in matters of religion ; and determine disputes in his Church”— 
It demands to be vindicated by its own evidences, which cannot be 
wanting, if it was established by Christ — and it scorns to triumph by 
the hand, which, instead of protecting it with the shield of its own 
evidences, strikes at a defenceless lival. Think you, Reverend Sir, 
that I accepted this controversy, for the pleasure of playing a mere 
polemical chess-game with him who offered it? God forbid! I accepted 
it with a view to drive the ploughshare of reason, evidence, and argu- 
ment, through the radical delusion, the “origo malorum,” of Protes- 
tantism. I lefiected, that possibly, in the inscrutable providence of 
God, the salvation of souls might depend on this controversy — and 
looking, I trust, with some portion of the charity of Christ, at the 
wanderings of my Protestant brethren, I determined to expose the 
fundamental delusion, by which, since the unhappy seperation, they 
have followed their clergy, their parents, their prejudices; — whilst all 
three, perhaps, conspired to persuade them into the erroneous suppo- 
sition, that they were following, forsooth, the “pure” word of God, 
the “Bible alone.” 

Now, sir, I again request you to “adhere Strictly to the subject of 
discussion for the time being,” as we have agreed in our rules; — to 
prove, if you can, the “Protestant rule of faith,” and, by close, posi- 
tive, and pertinent arguments, to overthrow, article for article, those 
which have been laid down against it, whilst I remain, very respect- 
fully, &c. J i*o. Huawxs. 


RULE 01? FAITH. 

New- York, February 1 8th, 1855. 

To the Rev. John Hughes, 

Sir , — It would appear from your exultation at the delay of my re- 
ply, that you were writing against time. I assure you that the force of 
your reasoning did not occasion that delay; as I think my answer suf- 
ficiently evinces. When you gravely attempt to turn such an event to 
your own advantage, it must convince the public of the weakness of 
your cause; and it will more fully explain to you the reason and pro- 
priety of my bringing so distinctly to view, in our preliminary corres- 
pondence, the nature of my occupation. — If [had been in Philadel- 
phia at the press, mv reply would have appeared in its proper order a9 
to time. As, however, you seem to intimate that there is merit in des- 
patch, let me inform you that S have to day, [the 18th February,] re- 
ceived your letter, No. 3; and that the time allowed me for reply, ex- 
tends only to Thursday the 21st, when the manuscript must be mail- 
ed, in order to be in season for the next paper. 

In regard to the terms, “Papist and Romanist,” which you call 
“nicknames,” it is proper here to remark, that truth requires their 
use. You assume the rank and name of “Catholic,” that is, “the univer- 
sal Church,” and all who are notin communion with you are heretics, 
doomed to perdition by your anathema, now in a full force, unless 
they repent and return. You beg the question, therefore, which is 
now in discussion, by the very name. Roman Catholic, in strict 
speech, is an absurdity, being equivalent, “particular universal.” Pro- 
testants, as members of the universal Church, claim to be catholicjand 
it is as proper to call you “Papists,” as us “Protestants.” — The one 
name defines those who hold to the supremacy of the Pope; the other 
those who protest against that system. If you are Roman Catholics, 
we are Protestant Catholics. I regard names then as signs of things; 
and use them for truth, not reproach. I shall feel no pang if you call 
me heretic, ‘for after the way you call heresy, so worship l the God 
of my fathers;” and with this explanation, I will hereafter endeavour 
to oblige you in the use of names. 

What you say of Volney is not even an illustration, much less an 
argument; for it is not true that the doctrine of the Saviour’s divinity 
contradicts our senses, or that lie was in any way made, or his divini- 
ty destroyed by man; all of which are true. The ribaldry of Volney is 
one thing, and the exposure of bad theology is another. I meant no re- 
proach in what I said. Rut it seems impossible t » define this doc- 
trine without offending those who hold it. Perhaps you are not aware 
that John Muss wrote against the following sentiment of a Bohemian 
Priest: “that a Priest before he says Mass is the Son of God, but af- 
terwards he is the Father of God, and the creator of his body.” I 
charge nothing evil to the intentions of those who hold this doctrine; I 
only show its inconsistencies and its tendencies. 

But to proceed- - The candid must be forcibly struck with the pe- 
culiar manner in which you pass by every argument brought by me 
against your rule of faith. Thus you say, “ YVeaxe discussing the 


14 


CONTROVERSY. 


jule of faith; and the parties adhere strictly to the subject of discus- 
sion for the time being, and to admit of no second question until the 
firt shall have been exhausted.” And again you say, “Now the state 
of the question, as laid down in my first letter, required you not to at- 
tack my rule by anticipation, but to defend your own.” — This indeed 
is strange reasoning. I 9 not the whole subject of the rule of faith be- 
fore us? But the following paragraph explains your design in this 
course. “If I prove, by unanswerable argument, that the protestant 
rule fails, in all these heads, then it will follow, by the very tenor of 
our agreement, that the Catholic rule must be the true rule appointed 
by Christ.” This is saying, in other words, that your Church is the 
residuary legatee of truth. If the Samaritans are wrong, then must 
the Jews be right! It is like the claim once set up by a wily shepherd. 
All the llocks of the surrounding fields met at the brook on a summer’i 
evening. The lambs were tender, and were not yet marked with the 
several shepherds’ marks. When the Hocks weie seperated, lie claim- 
ed all the lambs. The others expostulated, one saying this is mine, 
and another, this is mine. But he replied, “each of you have a mark 
for your sheep; these lambs have no mark upon them, and cannot be 
yours; therefore, they are mine.” In the spirit of this extraordinary 
plan of argument, you continue in this, as in your former letter, to keep 
your own rule wholly out of view; and you decline, in so many words, 
to answer my many objections to it. While you thus pass by all dis- 
cussion of it, the inference is irresistible, that your hope of success 
rests up*n the plan, of keeping out of view the defects of your system; 
and in seeking to perplex the general question before the public mind, 
by scholastic subtilities, when the subject calls for manly argument. 

In view of these things, I feel myself called on to pursue, in the first 
place, the line of discussion with which I closed my former letter.— 
This course is on every account demanded; for your letter of the 14th 
inst. is only a second edition, head for head, of that already answered 
by me. 

I. I have shown that your rule is not infallible. I will now prove 
that it is the parent of uncertainty. 

1. The authorised version of the Bible is in Latin, as well as the 
prayers, &c. of the church service. The Vulgate, with all its er- 
rors, was adopted by the Council of Trent as authentic and correct; 
yet a corrected edition was ordered by the same council, and it was 
printed under the care of the Pope, and published with his Bull, 
prohibiting any alteration in it. But so many errors were detected 
in it, that the editor was suppressed ! These are statements you 
will hardly deny. 2. The ponderous acts, decisions, &c. of the in- 
fallible church are deposited in the following works, and in an un- 
knowing tongue. Archbishop Manse’s Councils, 31 vols. folio; Great 
Book of Bulls, 8 vols. folio; Acta Sanctorum, 51 vols. folio; Decre- 
tals, about 10 vols. folio; total 100 folio volumes, and then 35 folio 
volumes of the Fathers, whose unanimous consent is a part of the 
testimony. These are the fountain, but who of the people can get 
at it? What is drawn thence is transfused through the fallible and un- 
certain minds of innumerable priests, before it reaches the people. 
Yet the** are the helps to understand the Bible! 3. The Church 


CONTROVERSY. 


IS 


of Rome is utterly silent about many doctrines; as whether the Vir- 
gin Mary was born sinless. There have been fierce contests about it 
in your communion. But the oracle is dumb. Every Protestant child 
can decide this question. As to the very seat of the boasted infalli- 
bility, she was silent at Trent, and is now divided and uncertain; and 
so of some other doctrines. 4. According to the doctrine of inten- 
tion, [see Council of Trent, Sess. 7. Canon 1 1.~] the efficacy of the sa- 
craments depends on the intention of the officiating minister; some of 
these sacraments, of which you make seven, are necessary in order to 
salvation, and all of them necessary in their places, to certain states 
in life. Thus marriage is not valid, if performed without the intention 
of the priest. Baptism and penance are not valid without his inten- 
tion; and on these depend salvation. But wo can be certain of the 
intention of the Priest? If the Bishop who ordained the Priest, lack- 
ed intention in the act, then the ordination is invalid, and, of course, 
all the Priest’s acts are invalid. But who can be certain that in this 
chain of ages some link is not wanting? JVho then can be certain of 
salvation in the Iiomish Church? Yet the Duke of Brunswick, assign- 
ing his fifty reasons for becoming a Roman Catholic, says, “The Catho- 
lics, to whom I spoke concerning my conversion, assured me that if I 
were damned for embracing the Catholic faith they were ready to an- 
swer for me at the day of judgment, and to take my damnation upon 
themselves; an assurance I could never extort from the ministers of any 
other sect, in case I should live and die in their religion.” While such 
daring impiety discovers the absence of all right feeling, it also evin- 
ces a desperation peculiar to a cause which needs propping at any 
price. Now if these statements be put together, they will show that 
your system is shrouded in uncertainty . But you contend in the first 
and second editions of your 10th head, “that a rule which is the pa- 
rent of uncertainty, cannot be that infallible rule established by Christ, 
to guide us in matters of religion.” 

II. The unwarrantable liberties of your church with the word of 
God, shows her fallible to a deplorable degree. 1st. We have seen 
on a former occasion the liberty taken by your church in adding to 
the word of God the Apocryphal books and unwritten traditions. 2d. 
We see how sh o takes away from the Bible by her treatment of the 
Decalogue. The catechism of the Council of Trent repeats only four 
words of the second commandment, and closes with an expressive et 
ccetera. A strange way to give a divine law, especially to a people 
who are deprived by the church of the word of God ! The aversion 
used in the Highlands of Scotland (by authority) mutilates it almost 
in the same way. The version used in Ireland entirely omits the 
second commandment! The Doway Catechism is wiser, as it was to 
circulate where the omission would not be borne; but it plainly per- 
verts the commandment “thou shalt not adore nor worship images,” 
whereas the true translation is “thou shalt not bow down thyself to 
them, nor serve them.” The reason for the change is very plain. 
3d. The evidence adduced in proof the sacrament of extreme unc- 
tion by the Council of Trent, is no less than a literary, or, if you 
please, & pious fraud; and I am prepared to prove it The Rhenish 
and Sordeax translations have been fiingalked by tbe’.r nv.rwMJs 


36 


CONTROVERSY. 


and glaring frauds. 4th. Your church has added to the word of God 
new articles of faith, and even new sacrements to the institutions of 
Jesus Christ. Leo X. condemned Luther for saying, it is not in the 
power of the church or the Pope to constitute new articles of faith. 
Divers writers, as the Abbot of Panormo, Ancona, &c., contend that 
the Pope is the measure and rule of faith, and can make new articles. 
The Bull of Pius IV 7 , appended to the decrees of the Council of Trent, 
makes a new creed — including many new articles of faith, to be sworn 
to by all ecclesiastics; and all are cursed who reject them. Among 
these innovations, brought in at different times, was transubstanfiation. 
as young as A. D. 1215 — purgatory — depriving the people of the cup 
in the Eucharist — indulgences — the worship of images— prayer in 
an unknowing tongue. It is of this that some one has remarked that 
your faith like the new moon, is crescent, with this difference, howe- 
ver, (let me add,) that it is not like hers, the growth of tight Jkdlar- 
mine we suppose means this, when he says of one article, “ferde de 
fide” (de concil. auth. I. 2. c. 17. s. 1.) “almost a matter of faith;” a 
probationer for a seat in the creed! If this be not “teaching for doc- 
trines the commandments of men, and making void the law of God 
by your traditions,” 1 know not what is. How true it is that “ Rome 
ivas not built in a day.” Here then your church both innovate upon 
the doctrine, and usurps the rights of God; and by this, she proves 
herself both fallible and guilty before God. 

ILL Your . ule, if observed, requires implicit faith in the decretals 
and interpretations of fallible men, which is subversive of the very 
nature and end of religion in the soul. Fait!) supposes knowledge, 
conviction on evidence, and trust in God, founded on a belief of di- 
vine truth. But your rule requires unconditional submission to the 
dicta of the church, in the lump. The “ Carbonaria fides ” or faith 
of the collier, is the very faith required. It is as follows; When 
asked, “What do you believe?” He answered, “I believe what the 
church believes.” “What does the church believe?” Answer, 
“What / believe.” “Then what do you and the church together be- 
lieve?’ Answer, “We both believe the same thing.” '1 his is the 
grand catholicon for believing every thing without knowing any 
thing. In this soil grew the maxim that “ignorance is the mother of 
devotion.” It is believing by proxy, or rather not believing at all, in 
the true sense. Here is the secret of the unity of your church. That 
this is not my bare assertion may be seen in the creed of Pope Pius 
IV., when it is said, “I admit the Holy Scripture according to the 
sense which the Holy mother Church, (whose right it is to judge of 
the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures,) hath 
held and doth hold.” The catechism also declares, that we avoid the 
damnation of our souls, “by taking the meaning and interpretation of 
the Scriptures from the same hand, from which we received the book 
itself, that is the church.” (Chap. 2. ques. 2.) Now I argue from 
these facts, that the operation of your rule is to annihilate inquiry, 
knowledge and faith, properly so called; and shews it to be a most vi- 
cious and fallible rule. 

IV. The means which have been restored to by your church in 
support of her rule, most clearly show that she i's fallible, and that 


CONTROVERSY. 


37 


your rule is utterly indefensible . I mention only a few specimens* 
1st. We have seen (in my 1 1 Id head, letter No. 2,) that by supreme, 
binding-, infallible law, the circulation and perusal of the Scriptures 
are restricted as follows: No layman has a right to read the Bible, 
without permission from a priest; and then, no Bible not translated 
by a Roman Catholic. The priest is the exclusive judge of the 
question, whether or not he is fit to read the Roman translation. — 
Even if permitted to read it, he is by no means to think for himself, 
but as the church thinks. If he reads without license, he cannot 
get absolution of sin, until he delivers up his Bible — that is, for the 
time he is under the curse of unpardoned sin. And all this is on 
the assumed ground that God’s word will injure the great mass of 
men if they read it. Again, all printers selling to those not licensed to 
read, are to lose the edition printed, and othei wise to be dealt with; — 
and all this is now binding on all, as well American citizens, as 
others: and those who reject these laws are anathematised heretics. — 
2d. A permanent committee, styled the “Congregation of the Index,” 
has charge, by authority, of the w ork of watching the press, and pro- 
hibiting the reading of any books they disapprove. “Their Index,” 
which enroles these books, has swelled to a great volume. The Ame- 
rican reader will be surprised to hear that I.ocke, Bacon, Sir Matthew 
Hale, Addison, Robertson, (Charles V) Walton, (Polyglott) Saurin, 
Young, (Night Thoughts,) are actually prohibited ; some wholly; 
others in chief part ! (See the “Ten Rules of the Index,” approv- 
ed by Pope Pius IV.) 3d. Beside this, Pope Clement VIII. in the 
year 1385, published a decree that all Roman Catholic authors, writ- 
ten since 1515, (the era of the Reformation,) should be corrected, 
so as not merely to blot out doctrines not approved, but to add what 
was necessary. These are his very words: “In libris catholieorum 
recentiorum, qui post annum christianse salutis 1515 conscriptisin , si 
id quod corrigendum occurrit, pauis demptis aut additis emendare 
posse videatur, id correctores faciendum curent; sin minus, omnino 
deleatur.” And worse than all, the process of expurgation has reach- 
ed even to the “Fathers.” Johannes Pappus and Franciscus Junius 
published an edition of an Index Kxpurgatorius, prepared by the In- 
quisitors, under a commission from the king of Spain. From that it 
appears, that the works of Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine, 
had passages purged from them, which were supposed tube unfriend- 
ly to the Roman Catholic Faith, Such passages, for example, as 
these, are struck out: “there is no merit but what is given us by 
Christ.” “God alone is to be worshiped,” (see Bishop Taylor”s dis- 
suasive from Popery, chap. I. for further reference.) Now' we say, 
that by such a process, we may prove any thing w e please. The 
church which restricts the use of the Scriptures; which s ts enthron- 
ed upon the ruins of human liberty; which forbids men to read, to 
print, and even to think, except as she shall dictate; which amends, 
changes, and tortures the writings of the living and the dead, and in 
support of her system, ventures to approach w ith her reforming hand 
even the testimony of antiquity — has evinced to all men that she is 
not a safe depository of the truth; that she is utterly fallible; that 
she does by these acts confess and prove it; aad however she may by 


CONTItOVEftSY. 


SI 

such mean 9 transmute all things that she touches into her own image, 
the Lord of truth never appointed such a guide to the people’s faith. 

V. Allow me next to say, that your rule, when in full and proper 
force, is incompatible with civil liberty and the rights of nations. 
Your system, with the Pope at its head, is a species of universal mo- 
narchy, civil and religious, extending to the whole world. As the 
vicar of Christ, he claims to be head of the church and of the 
state wherever there is either on earth. Now, for the proof: 1st. 
This right has been distinctly claimed. Pope Innocent III., says 
‘‘The church, my spouse, is not married to me without bringing me 
a dowry. She hath given me the mitre for the priesthood, and the 
crown for the kingdom — making me Lieutenant of him who hath 
written on his vesture and on his thigh. King of kings and Lord 
of lords. I enjoy the plentitude of power, that others may say of 
me next to God, Out of his fullness we have received .” (Itnerar. 
Ital, part 2. de coron. Rom. Pon.) I know no equal to this blasphemy 
but the ravings of a madman who once said, in my hearing, that 
he had been appointed by God commander-in-chief of the celestial 
hosts! The reader will please compare with the above, John i. 10. 
The. Pull of Clement V. for crowning the Emperor Henry, contains 
the distinct assumption of universal temporal empire; so do also the 
twenty-seven sayings of Gregory VII.; Clement VI. claims the same; 
so does the canon law, the Gregorian Epistles, Martin V., Boniface 
VIII. &c.; not to mention Bellarmine, and a number of other wri- 
ters in your church, who contend for the same rights. But not only 
have Roman Catholic writers and Popes contended for temporal ju- 
risdiction over nations, but Councils and General Councils, whose 
authority you acknowledge, have done the same; as I am abundantly 
prepared to prove if you deny it. This claim has been on divers 
occasions carried into practical operation, so as to leave no doubt 
as to what it means. The Popes have taxed nation after nation for 
the spiritual treasury at Rome, so that “Peter’s pence” became a 
by- word to express the tyranny of Rome. They have deposed prin- 
ces and set others up in their stead; they have cut asunder the very 
bonds of society by absolving subjects from the oath of allegiance to 
heretical princes; they have required princes to exterminate their 
subjects, and encouraged subjects to destroy their princes; and under 
this broad claim, they have even given away kingdoms to foreign 
princes, and have made crowns and nations their playthings and 
their toys. It is a curious fact to an American citizen, that Spain 
and Portugal have a universal grant from the Pope of the two Ame- 
ricas. 3d. Institutions have been erected and encouraged throughout 
the world, ivherever they would be tolerated, and systematic and le- 
galized persecutions have from age to age been carried on, to sustain 
this system of universal empire. At the very name of the Inqusi- 
tion, some of the nations of Europe still tremble ;and the heart of 
every civilized man is moved with mingled indignation and horror. 
This a painful, but necessary topic. I will not here enlarge on 
it, but stand prepared with abundant facts to substantiate my state- 
ments, if jou deny them. Now the reasoning from these facts against 
jour rule is irresistible. God ha? made all men free, and all nations 


CONTROVERSY. 


3 ? 


are endowed with the inalienable rights of self-government; and He 
who has said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” has also said, “Ren- 
der unto Csesar the things thatare Ceesar’s.” The church, therefore, 
which claims these powers, is at war vrith the Bible; and the rule of 
faith under which she holds these doctrines, and practices the usur- 

f ations, must be, in the strongest sense, a fallible and miguided rule. 
f Roman Catholics reject these principles, as every true American 
must, and as I doubt not multitudes of your people in this country 
and Great Britain do % then where is your infallibility? But you say 
the church is infallible, and her system unchangeably fixed. 1 call on 
you then for a defence. 

Once more. The effect of your rule of faith is to corrupt the 
worship of God , and to engender abundant superstitions. Idolatry, 
(excuse the word,) is enthroned in the temple of God, by the bulls of 
Topes, and the decrees of Councils; and is practically illustrated eve- 
ry day in the worship of the church. The spirituality of religioa is 
lost amidst a crowd of images and relics; of interceding saints, and 
human inventions: and ignorance perpetuates what your erring rule 
has legalized. Need I point you to exorcisms and incantations, to 
prayers to the saints, and worship of the Virgin Mary, to holy water, 
and the baptism of bells, to pilgrimages, and penances, and the 
crowd of superstitions which are encouraged in your church in con- 
firmation of my statements? Who would believe it, if it had not 
been seen, that in the nineteenth century of Christian era, there 
is a great anniversary day, set apart in “Rome, the mother and mis- 
tress of churches,” for blessing all the horses and asses and other 
beasts of that great city, whilst the same pontiff who sanctions such 
a system, publically denounces Bible Societies, as the organizations 
and servants of the devil? I ask if this is the product of infallible 
guidance; or if the rule which sanctions, teaches, and perpetuates 
such things, can have been given us by God to direct us in matters of 
religion? 

1 would superadd these heads to those contained in my former let- 
ter; and must wait in expectation of your redeming the pledge to 
answer them hereafter. In the mean time, that you may have no 
ground of complaint, even in appearance, I will close by briefly no- 
ticing your second edition of the ten Heads against our rule of faith. 
As to all you say about my denying the word of God to be a judge 
of controversies, our readers will judge whether you have not at- 
tempted to blind them by sophistry, rather than convince them by 
argument. You knew that I spoke of God as the ruler, the Bible 
as the rule. God is the judge and only judge, properly so called — 
The Bible contains the record of his infallible judgments. It is God 
speaking to man. — Again, you so evidently and consciously labour 
to disentangle yourself from my exposure of your use of 2 Peter 
i. 20, (on private interpretation,) that I am entirely willing to leave 
the subject to speak for itself, without another word. 

Here allow me to remark, that in your two letters, which two are 
one t your current reasoning is this: There are certain defects which 
no infallible rule can have t the Protestant rule has these; therefore 
it ie not infallible. New I have shown, (so clearly that you pretend 


40 


CONTKOVBKST. 


not to refute it,) that these defects are inherent in jour rule; there- 
fore, at every step, your own blows return upon your own cause. 
The force of this reasoning is irresistible, if you were honest in using 
it; for it is your own reasoning. Yet when the blow rebounds, you 
cry out, this logic was to destroy the Protestant rule, not mine. I 
was not talking of viy rule! You press me to keep to the point. 
What is the point? The rule of faith. Only do not touch Mr. 
Hughes’ rule of faith. But l not only thus exposed your rule of 
faith, I also defended our own rule from point to point. Let us sum- 
marily review these old acquaintances. 

I. “Christ never appointed the Protestant rule” “Christ never 
wrote any part of the Old or New Testament, and never commanded 
any part to be written by his apostles.” (1) i.et us apply this to 
your rule. Christ never wrote or commanded his apostles to write 
the Apocryphal books, or unwritten Traditions; therefi re, Christ ne- 
ver appointed them as a part of the rule of faith. (2) either the pro- 
phets and apostles were moved by inspiration when they wrote, or 
they were not. If they were, then they wrote by divine authority. 
But do you not deny that they were? Hence your statement is false, 
and if it proves any thing, it is that the Bible is not God’s word. 
Your next proof is that the “Protestant rule of faith did not exist till 
the end of the first century.” Now this isa mere play on words. I 
say that thd" Divine Revelation is our only rule of faith. The Bible 
contains that Revelation finally made out. The precise equivalent to 
this existed while Christ and his apostles were on earth, viz: the Old 
Testament and their infallible instructions. Before inspiration ceased, 
the Bible was completed. 1 will carry out your argument. The Bi- 
ble isa printed book; but at the death of John, the art of printing be- 
ing unknown, the word of God was written with pens , therefore the 
Bible is not God’s word. In the latter part of this head, you virtu- 
ally deny that the Old Testament is of equal authority with the New. 
Is this so? 

II. You call for “ Scripture warrant ,” that the Bible is the rule of 
faith. We reply as before, 1. The presumpt ion, (prior to the proof,) 
always is, that the Bible alone is the rule of faith. I ask, will you join 
the Infidel and say, that the presumption is the other way? 2. if any* 
thing else is to be added to the Bible, those who say so are bound to 
prove it. Hence the attack on the pretensions of your rule is the fair 
order of discussion. Feeling this to be a sore spot, you cover it up. 
3. The only admissible proof, as God tells us, isa miracle. Well, 
therefore, may you shift and turn and be silent, to shun a call you 
cannot meet The only reply you make to this reasoning, is to charge 
me with saying, that “the Protestant Rule is founded on presump- 
tion;” a misrepiesentation so glaring, that unwilling to distrust your 
candour, I must charge it on vour cause. 4. I then gave you Scrip- 
ture warrant for our rule, which you cannot torture so as to weaken 
its direct proof I will adduce more scripture in counexion with 
which the reader will please to examine 2 Tim. iii. 14, 17, and Isaiah 
viii. 20. In John vii. 17, we are taught that obedience gives certainty 
to doctrinal knowledge. — From l Peter i. 23. 1. Thess. ii. 13. James 
i. 18, that the Bible in the hands of the Holy Spirit, is the instrument 


CONTROVERSY. 


41 

of converting the soul. John xvii. 17. The Bible is the means of 
sanctification, Eph. vi. 17. Hebrews iv. 12. It is the great power 
of God. Gal.i. 8. It is the rule by which even Apostles are to be 
tested, (though the Pope refused.) 1 John iv. 1—3. It is th e people’s 
rule to try the spirits; no infallible judge is named. John xii. 48. it 
is the rule of judgment at the great day. John xx. 30 — 33. One 
Gospel is sufficient to give eternal life. Lukexvi. 29—31. Nothing, 
no, not a miracle, can convince those who reject it. Rev. xxii. 18. — 
Awful judgments, (I beg you to look narrowly at this,) are denounced 
against those who tamper with even a part of the Bible. The church 
who would mend this rule, is entitled to the epitaph of him who was 
destroyed by the nostrums of quacks, and directed to be written on 
his tomb, “1 was well — I wanted to be better — and here I am.” 

III. You argue “as the Bible is known through the medium of in- 
terpretation, and as the Protestant medium is fallible, therefore the 
rule is fallible.” 1. 1 reply, until you prove your infallibility, which 
you have not yet done, you are in a much worse case than we, as your 
Apocrypha, unwritten Traditions, and one hundred folios, with “all 
the Fathers,” exceed in number our Bible, since you have to interpret 
all these, to get at the true sense. 2. Your reasoning, reduced to form, 
is this; every rule, (say one for measuring distances) is handled by men; 
but men are fallible — therefore every rule is false — and cannot mea- 
sure infallibility — or, in other words, none butan infallible man can 
use the Bible. Is not the following reasoning just as good? Either it 
rains, or it does not rain — if it rains, it does not rain — if it does not 
rain, it rains. Then does it rain, or not rain? 

IV. You say the Bible cannot prove its own authenticity and in- 
spiration; therefore, it alone cannot be the rule of faith. "We reply, 
1. The inspiration of scripture may be proved from prophecy, from 
its contents, &c. 2. On the question, “are these the authentic or 
genuiue books which they profess to be ?” you confound the proof of 
a thing with the matter of it; as if you had said, a twelve inch rule is 
not a true rule, unless it can prove itself.. This is absurd. Your illus- 
tration of the w'ill is every [how faulty. The testator is Christ — the 
Bible is the will — the church is the heir. Who is the court before 
whom the proof is to be laid? Why the church you say. But who gave it 
authority? The church. No — the testator, for the church is heir. Who 
is the witness ? The church again.' — Yet with this fgure you would 
prove your point ! Now the case is this. Here is a will. W e w ant 
ivitnesses to prove that the testator made the will — not to give it au- 
thority: that comes from the testator. So it is precisely with the Bi- 
ble. The church does not give it authority; the Bible gives authority 
to the church. The testimony of those who lived in the Apostles’ days 
is what we want. Jewish writers testify, Heathen writers testify, 
and Christian writers testify, and this is the Book of God. If jou call 
this tradition, then it is the tradition of written testimony; \t is the 
tradition of universal antiquity; it is such a tradition as falsifies your 
unwritten traditions , your Apocryphal books, and your judge of con- 
troversies. If this be not so, will you tell me when and where the 
church authority settled the canon? — In a word, if the church of Rome 
had never existed, the proof would have been entire. 

6 


42 


CONTROVERSY. 


V. You are constrained to admit here that you made a misstate- 
ment m the former letter of one entire century ! You also misinter- 
pret my statement as to “sacred books” being doubtful. I said 
“some” (not books, but men] were doubtful, as to four of the many 
books. In the mean time the churches had “all the books,” and 
these doubts of some , (men, not books,) did not make it less truly 
the real and full rule. Of course, besides the distrust occasioned by 
such unfairness, your conclusion that the canon was so long uncertain, 
drawn from this perversion, falls to the ground. I also refer the rea- 
der under this head, to the contradiction I have there exposed, to which 
you render no reply. You assume that the church knew; and yet 
argue against our rule, that it was not known. Now which is true? 
If the former, your reasoning is false; if the latter, your rule is falli- 
ble. 

VI. & VII. There are two methods of settling disputes; reason and 
force. You take the latter; we the former. There are two rules, the 
Bible and the church of Rome. You assert that the Bible has failed, 
and thus make your church better than Christ and his apostles. I call 
for your proof. As to heresy, Augustine, whom you claim and quote, 
mentions eighty-eight heresies, down to his time ! I will in due sea- 
ton give you more of your own history on this topic. 

VIII. & IX. You have “slurred the notes,” to use your own expres- 
sions, and made no reply to me. 1. I have proved (see introduc- 
tion to former letter,) that by confession of Roman Catholics, they are 
as uncertain as Protestants. 2. I have proved in this letter, (see head 
on uncertainty,) that you are wholly uncertain: — and now, 3. You 
have at last to adopt our rule, or give up the question. For you get 
at the proof of your infallible rule by fallible men; and you get the 
proof entirely from the Bible. Is not this then making the Bible in- 
terpreted by fallible men, your rule of faith! 

And now, Sir, in closing this letter, I wish you to know that I will 
not be diverted from the fair and full discussion of the whole subject, 
viz: the rule of faith. Common sense demands it; and the third and 
fifth articles in our agreement justify it. I wish you also to under^ 
stand, that all I say is to be applied to your system, and not to your 
people. In this country especially, the Proteus-system conforms it- 
self as much as possible to the advace of the age, and the genius of 
a free and thinking people. You must go to Spain, to South America, 
to Rome, to see your system. The people here know not the half. 
It is in spite of being Roman Catholics — not in consequence of it, that 
you number the good and wise among your people. 

Your challenge to our whole church provokes a smile among us. — 
When I need any aid to meet your calls, I will tell you so. 1 am, I 
own, among the most insufficient of the sons of that venerated church 
to which I belong; but she feels as if no mighty shield were needed to 
quench jour arrows, and cover her feacred bosom from your assaults. 
’—I remain, your§, John Breckinridge. 


CONTROVERSY. No. V. 


R U I. E S. 

The undersigned agreeing to have an amicable discussion of the great points 
*>f religious controversy, between Protestants and Roman Catholics, do hereby 
bind themselves to the observance of the following rules: 

1. The parties shall write and publish, alternately, in the weekly religious 
papers, called the Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic paper, to be furnished 
by the first of January. It being understood that the communications shall be 
published after the following plan: — One party opening the first week, the other 
party replying the next week, and every piece to be republished in the imme- 
diately succeeding number of the Roman Catholic paper. The commmunica. 
tioris not to exceed four columns of the Presbyterian, nor to continue beyond 
six months, without consent of parties. 

2. The parties agree that there is an infallible Rule of Faith established by 
Christ to guide us in matters of Religion, for the purpose of determining dis- 
putes in the Church of Christ. 

3. They moreover agree, that after giving their views of the Rule of Faith, 
they shall proceed to discuss the question, “Is the Protestant religion, the re- 
ligion of Christ?” 

4. The parties agree respectively, to adhere strictly to the subject of discus- 
sion, for the time being, andtoadmit.no second question, until the first shall 
have been exhausted. Each party shall be the judge when he is done with a 
subject, and shall be at liberty to occupy his time with a second topic, when he 
is done with the first, leaving to the other party the liberty of continuing to re- 
view the abandoned topic, as long as he shall choose; subject, however, to be 
answered, if he introduce new matter. 

5 . Mr. Hughes to open the discussion, and Mr. Breckinridge to follow, ac' 
cording to the dictates of his own judgment. 

JOHN BRECKINRIDGE, 
JNO. HUGHES. 

Philadelphia, December 14th, 1832. 


RULE OF FAITH. 

February 28, 1833. 

To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 

Uev. Sir , — I am delighted to find that the pressure of yqur “official 
duties” has not prevented you, in this instance, from replying to my 
letter, within the time prescribed. But writing and reasoning are 
not the same thing; — and if you had replied not merely to my letter , 
but to my arguments against the Protestant rule of faith, you would, 
in my humble opinion, have rendered a better service to the cause in 
which you are engaged, at the same expense of postage and of press- 
work. The rapidity of transportation, as well as of composition, 
has probably contributed its share to the confusion, in which the topic 
returns from New York. When I last had the pleasure of addressing 
you, I requested you, by the respect you entertained for your own sig- 
nature at the head, of this letter , to confine yourself to the actual 
“ subject of discussion for the time being, and to bring forward no 
7 


CONTROVERSY. 


aecond question, until the first shall have been exhausted” The 
reader, who will take the trouble to cast his eye over the first two or 
three pages of your reply, will perceive with what elaborate fidelity 
you have violated your own regulation. I can hardly think of a sub- 
ject, that has been omited in your enumeration; — except original sin, 
the foreknowledge of God, and the covenant of election. It would 
seem, that you had copied the whole theologic index — the entire table 
of contents. For my own part, I do not find the space allowed us, 
ample enough for the multiplied evidences, appertaining to the single 
question at the issue between us. It is true the fifth rule allows you 
to “follow me according to the dictates of your own judgment.” But 
the fifth rule cannot warrant the violation of those which precede it. 
Your judgment, in this case, seems to prefer the instinctive, but wily 
logic of the bird, which is observed to quit the nest at the first ap- 
proach of the truant school -boy, and to flutter about in every other 
direction. For having adopted this course, I am willing to grant you 
the merit of sagacity. If the Protestant rule of faith is founded nei- 
ther on reason, nor revelation, but a manifest delusion, which preju- 
dice alone has consecrated, then you did well to abandon its defence. 
This will account for the impatience of your pen, and your prema- 
ture attack on the Catholic rule, in which, by introducing the old cata- 
logue of “questions,” you seem determined to bear me down, if not 
by the quality of your reasoning, at least by the quantity and confu- 
sion of your matter. 

You are, indeed, correct in saying, that the rule of faith is the sub- 
ject of discussion. And although I asked you to meet me in the in- 
vestigation of the Protestant principle first, as the natural order of 
proceedings: yet I am candid enough to admit your right to deny this 
request. The argument of comparison seems to be your favourite— 
and the Panaeca of religion, which you have provided for the ac- 
knowledged infirmities of the Protestant rule of faith, is the everlast- 
ing assertion, that “our rule works worse than yours.” Since, how- 
ever, you insist upon it, that both shall be placed side by side, for 
simultaneous investigation and comparison, I shall proceed to comply 
with the requisition. 

“The parties agree that there is an infallible rule of faith, esta- 
blished by Christ , to guide us in matters of religion, and to determine 
disputes in his Church .” This, Rev. Sir, is the standard, by which, 
according to your own agreement, the true rule of Christian belief is 
to be determined. Now the professed principle of Protestantism is 
"the Bible alone, interpreted by each individual for himself.” (If I 
mistake the Protestant rule, I request you to correct me.) I have 
given under ten distinct heads, the reasons, which make it manifest to 
my mind, that the Protestant principle, though specious in its theory, 
and flattering to the self-sufficiency of the human mind, if found to be 
a delusion in practice, and dose not correspond, in a single property, 
with the definition of the rule instituted by the Redeemer, of men. 
The Protestant rule is flattering to human pride, by teaching the 
most unlearned individual, that God has given him a Bible and an 
understanding, and that, by the application of the one to the other, he 
cannot bo deceived, since it is the Almighty himself that speaks in the 


CONTROVERSY 


45 


text. But who speaks in the understanding ? — By this principle, 
however, he is bound to frame his own creed ; and though all Chris* 
tendom should agree in pronouncing his belief a heresy, he is bound 
to hold rthat all Christendom is in error, and that he alone is right, 
since he follows the infallible word of God, the Bible alone ! This 
principle is the more delusive and dangerous, because it carries with 
it a seeming air of respect and reverence for the inspired writings; 
whilst in fact there is not a text in the sacred volume, which it does 
not give up to be broken on the wheel of private interpretation. It 
entirely overlooks the distinction, that it is not the book, but the true 
meaning of the books, which constitutes the word of God. It is thus, 
that Protestants, by following out their own rule of faith to its legiti- 
mate consequences , have walked, under the pretended guidance of the 
Bible alone, into the doctrines of Socinianism. This has been called 
“the grand heresy of the Reformation ; — but how bitterly may its 
professors retort on their Protestant brethren of other denominations. 
“You have proclaimed,” they may say, "that since the Reformation 
every man has the right to interpret the Scripture for himself, and 
when we exercise this right , you stigmatize us with the brand of 
heresy ! You are truly consistent, gentlemen ! You tell us to inter- 
pret the sacred record for ourselves, and when we follow your advice , 
we are heretics, forsooth.” Can this then. Rev. Sir, be the rule ap- 
pointed by Christ? But you will ask me, as usual, in what is the 
Catholic principle better? And it is but reasonable that I should en- 
deavour to satisfy your inquiry. 

Our rule of faith is laid down in the apostles’ creed. “I believe in 
the Holy Catholic Church.” This rule, you perceive, does not ex- 
clude, but comprises the belief of the Holy Scriptures. By the 
Church, I understand, that visible society of Christians, composed of 
the people, who are taught, and the Pastors who teach , by virtue of 
a certain divine commission, recorded in the 28th chapter of Saint 
Matthew, addressed to the apostles and their legitimate successors, 
“until the end of the world.” "Go ye, therefore, teach all nations: 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you: and, behold I am with you all days, even to the 
consummation of the world.” 19,20. By consulting the pages of 
the New Testament, not as an inspired book, if you choose, but as an 
authentic historical document, in which sense it is admitted even by 
Deists, I find that Jesus Christ proved the divinity of his mission and 
of his doctrine by evidences which it required the power of the Deity 
to exhibit. After having thus proved himself to be infallible, he re- 
quired that men should believe his doctrines under pain of eternal 
ruin . "He that believeth not shall be condemned.” Mark xvi. 16.— 
Now, you have agreed, that the rule, by which our belief is to be guid- 
ed, was appointed by Christ himself, and is therefore infallible— since 
it would be blasphemy to say, that Christhas appointed a principle of 
guidance, capable of leading astiay. In my first argument against 
the pretentions of the Protestant rule of faith, I showed that Christ 
did not establish it. That he did establish the Catholic rule , is what 
I shall now proceed to demonstrate. 


46 


CONTROVERSY. 


I. In the commission referred to above, all nations and all days* 
even to the end of the world, are included. Therefore, the fulfilment 
of the Saviour’s injunction required that the apostles should have .suc- 
cessors in the ministry of “teaching;” since the term of human life,, 
which remained to them, bore no proportion of the extent of the 
“ commission ,” which was limited only by the boundaries of the uni - 
verse — «all nations” — and of time — “ail days, even to the consum- 
mation of the world ” I defy you, Rev. Sir, to detect error , either in 
the premises or conclusion of this reasoning. Since, then, Christ 
appointed a perpetual succession of pastors in his Church, for the 
purpose of “ teaching all nations” during (t all days,” it is not by 
exercising an unfounded or arbitrary prerogative, but in simple obedi- 
ence to the injunction of Jesus Christ, that Catholics harken to the 
voice of the church, and the teachings of its pastors. I called on you 
in a former letter, to show that Christ established the Protestant 
rule; and those, who never before suspected the delusion of that 
principle, must have been disappointed, and pained at the lame man- 
ner, in which you endeavoured to escape from the difficulty. Ihey 
were obliged to suppose, that the “commission,” instead ol extend- 
ing to (( all nations and all times” as Christ had said, expired with 
the apostles; — and to suppose t hat every believer had the inspired in- 
structions of some one of the “twelve,” and a copy of the Old Testa- 
ment; — and to suppose that the latter, together with the last “apostle,” 
(after the death of the others,) constituted what you call “the equiva- 
lent to the Protestant rule of faith,” during the interval between the 
ascension of Christ and the death of St.John. And, finally, they 
were obliged to suppose , that from the moment of his decease, all liv- 
ing authority of “teaching” was supplanted, by placing the Bible 
alone in the hands of each individual; leaving him to infer, that the 
dreams of jwivate inter prtetaion constitute the rule of Christian be- 
lief, appointed by the Saviour himself ! ! And all this on your autho- 
rity ! — And all this, in opposition to testimony, which Protestants 
profess to respect. For, besides the “commission to teach,” the Son of 
God has declared to the same effect, “I will pray the Father, and he 
shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever, 
the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send 
in my name : He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to 
your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John xiv. 16, 
26. “He, that heareth you, heareth me.” Luke x. 16. In the same 
manner has he pledged his veracity, that “the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against his church” — that, “He himself will abide with it 
forever” — and St. Paul tells us, that “faith comes by hearing, and 
hearing by the word of God” — and that Christ has “given some apos- 
tles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and 
teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry.” 
Kph. iv. 11. The same apostle elsewhere says of the church, that it 
is “the pillar and ground of truth.” Will you, then, Rev. Sir, im- 
pugn the veracity of the Saviour, by asserting, that when, in these 
texts, he said “forever,” he meant only “till the death of the last 
apostle?” If you say so, the Universalist will comprehend the value 


CONTltOrBIWT. 


47 


of the admission; and he will borrow your key to explain everlasting 
punishment. 

The question is not now, Rev. Sir, whether it is to the pastors of 
the Roman Catholic church, or to those of the Protestant churches, 
that belongs the inheritance of this divine commission and of these 
immortal promises. The question is not now, what are the marks 
of the true church;— but the question is the true rule of faith. The 
texts of Scripture adduced above, prove that the Catholic principle 
has the first property of the true rule ; viz: “it was established by 
Christ .” But this is not all. To prove that, in the primitive church, 
these texts were understood in the sense in which 1 have used them, 

I will take the liberty of quoting briefly the testimony of two credi- 
ble witnesses. St. Ireneeus, the disciple of St. Polycarp, says : “sup- 
posing the apostles had not left us the Scriptures , ought we not, still 
to have followed the ordinance of tradition , which they consigned to 
those to Whom they committed the churches? It is this ordinance 
of traditions, which many nations of barbarians, believing in Christ , 
follow , ivilhout the use of letters or ink.” Iren. adv. heeres. L. iv. 
C.64. Tertullian, who lived two hundred years after Christ, says 
in his book of Prescription, pp. 56, 37 : “ that doctrine is evidently 
true , which was first delivered; — on the contrary, that is false, which 
is of a later date. This maxim stands immoveable against the at- 
tempts of all late heresies. Let such, then produce the origin of their 
churches : let them show the succession of their bishops from the 
apostles to their disciples. If you live near Italy, you see before 
your eyes the Roman church. Happy church! to which the apostles 
left the inheritance of doctrinces with their blood ! Where Peter was 
crucified, like his master; where Paul was beheaded, like the Baptist. 
If this be so, it is plain, as we have said, that heretics are not to be 
allowed to appeal to the Scripture, since they have no claim to it.” — 
Similar to this is the testimony of St. Vincent, of Lenus, in the 
fifth century. “It never was” says he, “or is, or will be lawful for 
Catholic Christians to teach any doctrine, except that which they 
once received: and it ever ivas, and is, and will be their duty, to con- 
demn those who do so. Do the heretics, then, appeal to the Scrip - 
tures ? Certainly they do, and this with the utmost confidence. You 
will see them running hastily through the different books of Holy 
Writ, those of Moses, Kings, the Psalms, the Gospels, &c. At 
home and abroad, in their discourses and in their writings, they hard- 
ly produce a sentence, which is not crowded with the words of 
Scripture. — Let us remember, however, that Satan transformed him- 
self into an angel of light. If he could turn the Scriptures (referring 
to St. Matt. iv. 6.) against the Lord of Majesty , what use may he 
not make of them, against us poor mortals. — Finally,” he con- 
tinues, “th e divine text is to be interpreted according to the tradition 
of the Catholic church.” Now, let me inform you, that the word 
“ tradition .” in all these passages, means simply, the doctrines trans- 
mitted from the apostles, in the ministry of teaching by the Pastors of 
the church 

The next evidence I shall produce in support of the Catholic rule 
of faith, and against the Protestant principle, is derived from a source, 


48 


CONTROVERSY. 


which I am sure you will respect. It is the doctrine and practice of 
your own church," laid down in the Westminster Confession, 

The first is the Baptism of infants, sanctioned by the “teaching** 
of the Pastors of the Church, but certainly not susceptible of proof 
by any text of sacred Scripture. (Page 159.) The second is the 
violation of the Sabbath, commanded by God to be sanctified, 
(Exodus xx. 8.) and the subtitution of Sunday, ( without the 
authority of any single text of Scripture; but in accordance with 
the constant “ teaching ” of the Pastors of the Church. (Page 
132.) The third is, in the mutual promises exacted both from tne 
minister and the congregation in the ceremony of ordaining, when 
the former is obliged to promise “submission to the discipline of the 
church,” and the latter, both "obedience and submission unto the 
new minister, as having rule over them in the Lord.” (Page 590.) 
Is there any Scriptural evidence to show that St. Paul required such 
promises, from either Titus or Timothy, previous to ordination ? I 
use this reference not as an argument, but rather as a commentary ; 
which, considering its source, is no small compliment to the Catholic 
rule of faith, at the expense of your own. I may add also, that in 
the year 1729, the Synod of Philadelphia passed an act, called the 
“adopting act,” by which not only candidates, but professed minis- 
ters, were “obliged” to adopt the Westminster Confession, as con- 
taining the summary of the Scriptural doctrine, — by way, I suppose, 
of proving the sufficiency of the “Bible alone; interpreted by each 
individual for himself.” (See Dr. Miller’s 2d and 6th letters to Pres- 
byterians.) 

My first conclusion, then, is, that the Catholic rule of faith was in- 
stituted by Christ; that it is the rule, which prevailed, except among 
the deluded votaries of heresy, in all the former ages of the Christian 
Church — and finally, that it is the principle to which the Presbyteri- 
ans are obliged to have recourse, on a variety of occasions. The 
reader of course, must judge, whether the facts and the reasoning 
authorized this first conclusion. 

II. Is it infallible? If the foregoing conclusion be correct, it must 
be infallible, according to your own definition — since “it was esta- 
blished by Christ.” At this stage of the comparison and investiga- 
tion of the two rules, let us pause and compare notes. You say that 
the Scriptures are infallible: and I agree with you entirely in this belief. 
— But, then, you will agree with me, that the infallibility of the 
Scripture consist in the sense and not in the ink, binding, or paper 
of which the volume is composed. Itself declares that “the letter 
killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” The Protestant principle, there- 
fore, is not rational, for this reason, that, although the Book be in eve- 
ry case, infallible, the private interpretation of the book is, in every 
case, confessedly the reverse. If you hear a Unitarian quote Scrip- 
ture, to prove that Jesus Christ was a very good man, but nothing 
more; — a Swedenborgian, to prove that this “very good man” was 
Jehova the eternal God , and that the idea of two other distinct per- 
sons in the Deity is an error; — if you hear the Episcopalian quoting 
it to establish the distinction between bishops and presbyters, — the 
Universalist, — indulging his charity, for the honour of the Almighty, 


©ONTROYBMY. 


and the comfort of the human race, — quoting it, to disprove the exist- 
ence of a devil or a hell, which he regards as superstitious, that not 
even the light of the reformation was capable of expelling — what do 
you say in all these cases? You say that the individual has, indeed, 
the ink, paper, book, and even the words of Scripture, but that the 
sense and true meaning are wanting , Then — every thing is want- 
ing. Where then, I would ask, is the security on which either they 
or you can depend, unless the interpretation , as well as the text, be 
infallible? But this you have given up — and methinks I hear you 
solving the difficulty by the all potent interrogatory — “in what is your 
rule better?” 

It is better in this ; that according to our rule, the Scripture, so far 
as doctrine and morals are concerned, has but one sense and one 
meaning, through all the ages of the church, and all the nations of 
the earth. With us, it is a principle of religion and of common sense, 
that the Holy Ghost does not contradict himself either in the Scrip- 
ture, or in the interpretation of it; and consequently the meaning is 
the same now, that it was before the Reformation, and up to the days, 
when the church received the Divine Book from the hands of the in- 
spired authors. But you will say we are forbidden to read the Scrip- 
tures. Indeed, Sir, we are not. But if they were liable to the same 
abuse, by our rule , as they are by yours, we should not only accept 
but even solicit the prohibition. 

Here you will say, or rather you have said in your objections, that 
our rule is also fallible, “in as much as I can never be more certain, 
in learning the doctrines of the church, than you are in your inter- 
pretation of the Bible.” To this I reply, that I can — and 1 will show 
you in what way. According to the Catholic rule of faith, the doc- 
trines of Christianity are not abstract speculations ; they are “posi- 
tive truths, facts,” unchanged and unchangeable, as they came from 
the lips of Jesus Christ and his inspired apostles. But, being pub- 
lic truths, or facts, they were taught by the pastors of the church, 
and believed by the people in all countries, and in every century since 
the establishment of the church. Consequently, I can verify them 
with the sam e certainty, which I have that such an event as the bat- 
tle of Waterloo, the decapitation of Charles I., or the council of Nice, 
took place in the world. In neither case is a divine or personal in- 
fallibility necessary. When I say that 2 and 4 make 6 ; — that 
Charles X. was expelled from France; — that Luther had a misunder- 
standing with Leo X. — that John Huss was burned to death at Con- 
stance, and Michael Servctus in Geneva; — I assert propositions 
which are infallbily true. But when I take up the words of Jesus 
Christ, “Thifi is my body,” and assert their meaning to be “this is 
not my body;” the case is entirely changed. And why ? Because, 
in this I utter a mere speculative proposition — an opinion. Now, ac- 
cording to the Protestant rule of faith, every text of Scripture, connect- 
ed with doctrine, must go through such an ordeal of speculation : 
and is it to be wondered at, that, under the guidance of such a prin- 
ciple, men should be divided off into parties and opinions ; for, and 
against every doctrine; — from the “washing of feet,” up to the 
Saviour’s divinity ? The situation of a Catholic is very different : — 


50 


CONntOVEliSY. 


when he is a child, he is instructed in the summary of the Christian 
doctrine, by his parents and his catechism. This is the order of na- 
ture as well as of religion. When he grows up, he finds his imme- 
diate pastor inculcating, and developing from the pulpit, the same 
dogmas of belief which were laid down in his catechism. He finds 
his pastor teaching the same doctrines which 'are taught by all the 
other pastors, monks, friars, doctors, cardinals, bishops, including the 
Pope — and believed, by all the Catholic people and pastors in the 
whole universe! If he be a gentleman of leisure and fortune, and 
fond of travelling, he may visit France, Scotland, Germany, Greece, 
Spain, Fgypt, Palestine, China, Italy, Ireland, Peru, Canada, and 
our own Republic — and in every island, and on every continent, 
in every country under heaven, he will find the pastors of the Catho- 
lic church teaching , and the people, with the pastors, believing iden- 
tically the same doctrines. If he be a scholar, the pages of univer- 
sal historyare before him. He may consult antiquity , and he will 
find that the doctrines, which are now taught by the pastors, and 
believed by both pastors and people, were taught and believed by 
pastors and people in every age since the birth of Christianity. If 
he be a linguist and a biblical critic, he may consult the writings of 
the fathers, and the sacred volume, either in the original text, or as we 
have it, and he will find that lesus Christ made the promises of infal- 
libility to the succession of teaching , and, not to writing , reading , 
or private interpretation. 

But what, you ask, if he be a “collier?” Why, in that case, his 
mother will have taught him the Lord’s prayer; the angelic saluta- 
tion, commonly called the “Hail Mary!” — and the Apostle’s Creed, 
in which he says, “I believe in the Holy Catholic church” — a profes- 
sion of faith, which includes every article, believed (with more accu- 
racy of conception, indeed, and distinctness , of definition) by the 
most learned doctor or bishop of the church. But besides, his mo- 
ther will have taught him to make the sign of the cross, in the name 
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to signify, by this sign, his faith 
in the redemption of Christ on the cross; and by the words, his be- 
lief in the adorable Trinity — and now, I will send him down to the 
mines, at the age of ten years, furnished with a more orthodox creed, 
than some of your Protestant ministers profess, after having “work- 
ed” by the Protestant rule of faith for forty years. Neither God, nor 
common sense requires him to read the 101 folios, which you have 
been pleased to comply for his use. 

But if he be a Protestant “collier,” what then ? He must wait un- 
til he is able to regulate his belief according to the “Bible alone.” 
Of course, he must read all, to make the rule complete. But if some 
passages seem to contradict others? Why, then he has to compare 
parallel passages, and explain one text by another. But he cannot 
read. Then he must hear it read. The first chapter of the gospel of 
St. John, is not more than half finished, when he exclaims, “I am 
a poor uneducated man, and I really do not understand what you 
read. Just tell me, in plain language, what the book says.” “It 
says, that Infant Baptism is sufficient,” replies my learned opponent. 
— “No,” retorts the Baptist, you must believe and be baptized, and 


CONTROVERSY. 


SI 

that by immersion .’’--“The baptism of the spirit is sufficient,” says 
the Quaker. — “Why, gentlemen,” cries out the collier, “you startle 
me !” “You must repent and avoid hell,’* continues the Methodist. 

There is no hell in the Bible,” says the Universalist, "it is a bugbear 
invented by priestcraft.” — “You must worship Christ,” says the Lu- 
theran.” “If you do,” says the Unitarian, “you will commit idola- 
try; for Christ is nothing more than a mere creature, according to the 
Scriptures — the Father alone is God.” “Oh ! how you blaspheme,” 
exclaims the Swedenborgian, “The Son alone constitutes the Deity ; 
The Father”' — “Stop, gentlemen,” interrupts the collier; “pray 
whence did you get this book?” — “From the Saviour of the world,” 
answer all. — “And for what purpose ?” — “Why, as an infallible rule 
of faith) 1 ” says Mr. Breckinridge, “to guide us in matters of reli- 
gion, and to determine disputes in the Church of Christ .” — “But by 
what rule do you interpret it?” — “We are Protestants,” answer all, 
“and the Bible alone, interpreted by each individual ‘for himself,’ is 
our rule of faith.” — “Well, gentlemen, I am, as you preceive, a plain, 
uneducated collier; but if God has given me an ounce of common 
Understanding, whereby to form a judgment, my judgment, from 
what I have seen and heard , is this — either, that Jesus Christ was a 
juggler; or, that your rule of faith is false; — or, that I am deranged. 
You are all learned men — and you will select whichever of these 
three alternates you may prefer. Farewell.” 

The case of the collier is one that has an inwortant bearing on the 
general question, and I am glad you remindecr me of it. It furnishes 
the illustration, and proves the truth of a remark I made at the com- 
mencement of my first letter — that the “tendency of the Protestant 
principle of private interpretation is to sap the foundation, of the 
Christian religion.” Will you, then, Rev. Sir, still say, that admit- 
ting your rule to work badly, “ours works worse?” 

Having disposed of the collier, I must now proceed to answer the 
objections, so called, which you have brought forward against the Ca- 
tholic rule of faith. — “Their name is Legion.” if the foregoing facts 
and reasoning of this letter be correct, however, then the largest por- 
tion of the brood has already been “eaten up,” in the arguments.— 
The rest are founded on a misconception of the real stateofthe ques- 
tion, and disappear as soon as they are understood. 

1st. Then, it is a principle of our belief, that the dogmas of our 
Church were originally revealed by Christ, and taught by his apostles: 
that these dogmas, or articles of fa ith, and morals, are the only ob- 
jects for the definition and transmission of which, in the “teaching of 
the pastors,” the divine promise of infallibility is recorded in the 
Scripture, claimed by the church, or necessary in the revelation of re- 
vealed truth. The obstinate rejection of one or more of these articles 
of faith— by following private opinion, in opposition to the teaching 
and belief of the whole church, is what constitutes the crime of here- 
sy; and the man who acts thus, ceases to belong to our communion. But 
as the individual has no right to reject what has been always, and is 
everywhere taught and believed, — so neither does the church claim , 
nor has she ever exercised the right of creating, or imposing on him 
the belief of new articles of faith. You mistake, then, Rev. Sir, the 
8 


52 


CONTROVERSY. 


laiguage of definition for the words of creation, whenever you say 
that any of our doctrines began in “such a year, or in “such a centu- 
ry :” until which time it had been, as you suppose, “a probationer lor 
a seat in the creed.” However, in thus confounding the definition ,, 
with the creation of doctrine, you only follow the example of a learn- 
ed Protestant, and they say, a very benevolent and moral man I 
mean Dr. Priestly. In his “History of Early Opinions,” he argues, 
that the Divinity of Christ, never dreamt of, as he supposes, in the 
life of the aposties, “crept in,” as an “opinion” a short time after- 
wards, spread silently, and waxed strong, until it was finally enact- 
ed into an article of faith in the council of Nice, A. D. 325. 

2d. Besides doctrines — articles of faith — and moral s--wmch are 
immutable , there is discipline, for which infallibility is neither claim- 
ed nor necessary. Discipline is different from doctrine ; it may be 
adapted to the circumstances of different ages and countries. It is 
the mere livery of faith: and obvious as is the distinction, we have 
heard Protestant Doctors, if they can detect a single button, more or 
less in Spain or Italy, than they have been accustomed to see in our 
own country, exclaim, “Lo ! what is become of the boasted infallibili- 
ty?” Answer, It is watching, as a guardian angel, by the side of 
those “ positive truths ,” “facts,” “ doctrines ,” which Jesus Christ re- 
vealed to his apostles, and commanded them to teach to “all nations,” 
in “all days,” even to the end of the world. Discipline may vary — 
doctrine is always the same — just as a man may change his garment, 
without forfeiting his^ersonal identity. 

3d. There are besides doctrine and discipline, opinion, — but they 
are not about the “Divinity of Christ,” or the “real presence.” They 
are on questions, concerning which no positive revelation has been 
given by the Saviour, or preached by the apostles. That these opin- 
ions have been warmly and uselessly discussed and agitated, is a fact 
that I am as willing to proclaim as you are. Catholics may hold either 
side in any of these opinions, without ceasing to be Catholics — pre- 
cisely because they are opinions , and not doctrines. This distinc- 
tion is not new. St. Augustine referred to it, when he said, “ Inneces - 
sariis unitas; in non necessariis libertas ; in omnibus, charitas .” — 
“In matters of fait h, unity; in matters not of faith, liberty; in all 
matters, charity .” 

4th. There are besides these, local customs and habits peculiar to 
different countries and ages. 

Now, Rev. Sir, I defy human ingenuity, to extract from all you have 
written, one single genuine argument against the Catholic rule of 
faith. You present, indeed, in each of your letters, a crowd of as- 
sertions against local customs and free opinions of Catholics: against 
the discipline or doctrines of the church, with which doctrine alone is 
the infallibility of the Catholic rule of faith connected; and condemn- 
ing our doctrines by your confessedly fallible principle of guidance, 
you arrive at the easy conclusion, that our rule of faith is not the true 
rule ! Have you attempted to show that it did correspond with your 
own definition of the true rule? — That it was not “established by 
Christ?” — That it is not competent “to guide us in matters of reli- 
gion” — or “to determine disputes in the Church of Christ?” No! 


CONTROVERSY. 


51 

And yet this definition is the true standard, by which we have both 
agreed to compare the Catholic and Protestant rules ; and to deter- 
mine which of the two is the false , and which is the true principle of 
guidance, in ascertaining the doctrines of Christ, as distinguished from 
the opinions ot men. This is the standard with which I compared the 
Protestant rule of faith — when 1 proved in my former letters, that the 
one has not a single property, in common with the other. This I prov- 
ed in ten distinct propositions, supported by facts and arguments, to 
which, as laid down in my last letter, I beg leave to refer the reader. 
He will perceive that you never take up my argument, as it has been 
arranged by myself— but having moulded it into a manageable shape, 
you relute the creature of distort ion, but leave the difficulty , unsolv- 
ed. Allow me to give a specimen from your last epistle. 

VI. VII. “There are two methods of settling disputes, reason and 
force ; you take the latter; we the former. There are two rules, the 
Bible and the Church of Rome. You assert that the Bible has fail- 
ed, and thus make your church better than Christ and his Apos- 
tles.” Indeed, Rev. Sir, I should be sorry to be guilty of either the 
argument, or the blasphemy. Let the reader compare this with my 
own argument, VI. and VII. and I have no doubt but he will acquit 
me of the. charge. What opinion he may form of the cause which 
required it, or the individual by whom it is preferred, it is not for me 
to determine. The other weaknesses of your attempt to reply to 
those ten arguments I shall leave for the present unexposed. For I 
have not the talent of “adhering strictly to the question under discus- 
sion for the time being” — and yet broaching, in the same letter, every 
question, that has been agitated since the Reformation. These are 
contradictions, which your pen alone, it seems, can reconcile. 

But a more painful task is imposed on me, in reference to two or 
three assertions of yours, in which there is an entire departure from 
the truth of history and of facts. You assert that opinions pass into 
articles of faith, or doctrine in the Catholic Church; and for this you 
quote the authority of liellarmine, but I defy you to quote ten lines 
before, and ten lines after the words “ferede fide,” without convict- 
ing yourself of what is not becoming a “minister of the Gospel.” In 
the same manner you say, that LeoX. condemned Luther for saying: 
“It is not in the power of the Church or the Fope to constitute new 
articles of faith. This is untrue. Being a mere historical fact, if it 
is not untrue, you can easily prove the contrary.” Another asser- 
tion which is untrue, is, that, “as to the Pope’s supremacy, there are 
no less than three systems in our church.” Now I defy you, or 
any one else, to name a single Catholic in the whole universe, that 
has publicly denied the Pope's supremacy, without forfeiting 

COMMUNION AND MEMBERSHIP, BY THE DENIAL. Alld if yOU Cannot, 

what will Protestants think of your assertion, that there are three sys- 
tems (of doctrine) in our church on that subject ? — and what will 
they think of a cause defended by such — argument ? When we come 
to speak of the “Vulgate edition of the Scriptures ;” “the Sacra- 
ments;” “the doctrines of intentions;” “the Apocryphal books,” as 
you term them; “the liberties, which you say (falsely, ag I hold) tho 
church has taken with the word of God;” “the Writings of tho 


CONTROVERSY. 


Fathers;” “Purgatory;’* “depriving the people of the cup of the 
Eucharist;” “Indulgences;” “Prayer in an unknown tongue;” &c« 
&c. &c.&c. I bind myself to prove , that you have misrepresented 
these doctrines, and asserted what is not correct. In the mean time, 
the question is, the rule of faith. If it be true, as I have shown, 
and as you have admitted, that Protestants have nothing, and, by their 
rule of private interpretation, can have nothing, more certain, than 
their speculative opinions, even for the most sacred of their own doc- 
trines; so, neither can they have any thing more for the condemnation 
of ours. You first condemn our doctrines by your own opinions, and 
then condemn our “rule of faith” by our doctrines ! The rule of faith 
is to be judged and determined not by your opinions of either your 
own doctrine, or ours-— but by the definition. Is your rule true ? Is 
it infallible ? “Was it established by Christ ?” That is the real 
question. For if Christ revealed doctrines, and required of men to 
believe those doctrines, under pain of eternal condemnation (Mark 
xvi. 16.) and yet, appointed as a medium for ascertaining what they 
are — a rule by which, iustead of being preserved as doctrines, they 
are resolved into a mass of opinions, as diversified and contradictory 
as those which spring from private interpretation;-*- then we need not 
inquire, who is right or who is wrong. Every man has a right to his 
t, opinion, >i whether he denies the real presence in the Eucharist, the 
the necessity of regeneration, or the Divinity of Jesus Christ. In 
all revelation there is not an opinion — and in all Protestanism there 
is nothing else but opinion; — you have not attempted to deny either 
of these propositions. 

You have quoted the ambitious projects and pretensions of indivi- 
dual Popes. Among them there have been a few bad, out of a mul- 
titude of good, virtuous and holy men. The fact, however, proves 
nothing more against our rule of faith, than the crime of Judas does 
against the infallibility of Jesus Christ ; or the incarceration of a 
wretched Presbyterian clergyman in the State-prison of New York 
does against the orthodoxy of the “Westminster Confession.” You 
know to whom I allude — and although he belonged to your commu- 
nion, I would rather shed a tear over his misfortunes, than stop to 
glean arguments from the dark records of his crimes, conviction, and 
ruin. I should distrust my cause, if I thought it required them. 

Your pretty little story about the “shepherds at the brook,” would 
be admirable in pastoral compositions — it is so simple. But in pole- 
mics it is quite out of place. Would you know why ? Because, there 
the shepherds , sheep and lambs were many; — here, the rule of faith, 
according to your own definition and agreement, is but one. And if I 
prove that it is not that, which Protestants profess to follow — the rea- 
der can easily draw the conclusion. 

But then in Rome, there is one day in the year (not to speak of kiss- 
ing tlie Pontifical slipper) for “blessing horses, asses, and other 
beasts ! ” In answer to this, I have only to say that on one day, of the 
year, would a minister of the Gospel refus e,~if respectfully invited, 
to perform a similar operation, over a piece of good beef*, such as may 
always be found in our Philadelphia markets. 1 see no difference, ex- 
cept that in this case the “beast” happens to be dead ; and that the 


CONTROVERSY. 


45 


maxim has it “nil nisi bonum de mortuis .” But, Key. Sir, the cour- 
tesies of society regard us both as clergymen, notwithstanding your 
mutilated exordium, ‘‘Sir” — and as clergymen it does not become us 
to treat so grave a subject, with levity or ridicule. Is the Protestant 
principle the true rule of Christian faith, or is it not the rule, exclu- 
sively of sectarian opinion? That is the real question— on the pro- 
per solution of which may depend the salvation of immortal souls, for 
whom Christ died. If there are under heaven, in the whole volume 
of reason and revelation, arguments to prove, that the “Bible alone, 
interpreted by each individual for himself,” is “the infallible rule of 
faith” — that “the Bible alone, interpreted by each individual for him- 
self,” is u the rule established by Christ ” — (( to gude us in matters of 
religion and to determine disputes in his chnrch ,” — I again entreat 
you to furnish them. If no such arguments can be furnished, then is 
your rule of faith of human invention, and not of Christ’s appoint- 
ment. The “definition” constitutes the mark of the Divine “Shep- 
herd” stamped upon the true rule , under the guidance of which there 
is but “one sheepfold,” his disciples being “one’* in doctrine , as “He 
and the Father are one,” in nature and purpose. — Yours, &c. 

Jnq. Hughes. 


RULE 0F FAITH. 


New -York, 5 th, March, I85X 

To the Rev. John Hughes, 

Jiev. Sir, — You rise from your prostration with the air of victory- 
It is however, I think, a little abatement to your chivalry, that you 
should still cry out against my arguments, and yet meet them, in chief 
part, with reiterated compliments of my departure from “the Rules,” 
and clamorous demands to keep to the question. When you proposed 
to undertake a discussion with me, I requested a reply to my first 
printed letter. You declined. I proposed a public, oral discussion. 
You declined. Mter much negotiation, the present channel was 
agreed on. The rules were, very much, of your own defining ; you 
insisted that we should first discuss the rule of faith, and you must 
begin. I proposed that after examining the rule of faith, we should 
take this for the point of debate, “Is the religion of Roman Catholics 
the religion of Christ?” You still declined, and we must change it 
to this, “Is the religion of Protestants the religion of Christ ?” And 
now, after all these concessions, you claim to interpret these rules, 
and even to determine how I shall conduct my argument; and while 
the nerves of your cause are cracking under the pressure of truth, 
gravely charge me with violating rules and passing by the question ! 
1 am weary of this unmanly strife of words, and “vain jangling” 1 
about modes and forms. Once for all, therefore, let me settle the mat- 
ter. If the reader will refer to “the* rules,” at the head of your let- 
ter, he will perceive that the 3d assigns the “ rule of faith" as the first 
subject of discussion, and with the following amplitude, “ after giving 
their views of the rule of faith <$*c. Does this not bring up the 
whole subject of the rule of faith? The 4th rule requires us, “to ad- 
here strictly to the subject of discussion for the time being — and to 
admit of no second question ," Sfc, Sfc. Now I ask, have I not dis- 
cussed, throughout, one and the same question, viz: the rule of faith? 
— Roth in my first and second letters, (Nos. 2 and 4.) I replied to 
all your objections. But I did not stop there. I went on to expose 
your rule. By a great number of yet unanswered arguments, I prove 
its utter infallibility. I have shown, by the confession of your own 
writers, that you are compelled to use private interpretation, by fal- 
lible men, in order to find out from the Bible your church and your 
rule: I have exposed your judge of controversies, as one whom you 
could not agree on among yourselves, and who could not possibly be 
a judge, from the nature of the case: I have shown that your church 
has varied in doctrines from age to age, and therefore ha9 not an in- 
fallible judge in her, as she pretends to have: I have shown that the 
direct tendency of your system was to corrupt the morals of the peo- 
ple and the worship of God, and therefore your rule was entirely fal- 
lible, and even greatly evil: I have shown that your rule usurps the 
prerogative of God, and that it violates the testimony of the senses: 
that it was not only fallible, but entirely uncertain: that it requires 
ignorance and implicit faith at its foundation in the minds of men : 


CONTROVERSY. 


57 


that it is incompatible, not only with personal, but with civil liberty : 
that under the guidance of your rule, the Bible has been shut against 
mankind: that the commandments have been mutilated, additions 
made to the word of God, and that new articles, and new sacra- 
ments have been added, under the authority of your rule: that 
even “the Fathers, ’’ the professed fountain of evidence in your be- 
half, have been purged of matters which went against you : and 
that by the authority of the Pope, writes in your communion of a la- 
ter day, have been abridged, enlarged, or changed, to fit them to be 
witnesses to the Roman Catholic rule. These things have been clear- 
ly shown, as may be seen by a reference to the letters themselves; 
I ask, do they not bear directly on the question? Your chief reply to 
them as yet, is, that they violate the rules! When you attempt a re- 
joinder, the public will judge both of their fitness and their force. 

Before I enter on the examination of your reasoning, it is proper 
here to n^eet and repel a paragraph near the close of your letter, viz. 
“But a more painful task is imposed on me, in reference to two or 
three assertions of yours, in which there is an entire departure from 
the truth of history and of facts. You assert that opinions pass into 
articles of faith or doctrine in the Catholic Church, and for this you 
quote the authority of Bellarmine; but I defy you to quote ten lines 
before and ten lines after, the words ‘fere de fide,’ without convicting 
yourself of what is not becoming ‘a minister of the Gospel.’ ” Now 
I had said in my letter, “your church has added to the word of 
God new articles of faith, and even new sacraments to the institu- 
tions of Jesus Christ.” I appealed for proof to various writers, and 
to the Bull of Pope Pius IV. You say nothing of these proofs. I 
then added, “ Bellarmine , we suppose , means this, when he says of 
one article, ‘fere de fide,’ almost in a matter of faith.” Now if, in- 
stead of “slurring the notes,” you had quoted from Bellarmine the 
ten lines “before and ten lines after” the offensive passage, it would 
have come with a better grace from a Parthian arrow shot while in 
flight. But you proceed to remark, “In the same manner you say 
that Leo X. condemned Luther for saying: It is not in the power of 
the Church or the Pope to constitute new articles of faith.— ‘This is 
untrue. Being a mere historical fact, if it is not untrue, you can 
easily prove the contrary.” This is strong language! Yet you put 
the subject to a fair issue; let us try it — it is done in few words. — • 
The Buli of Leo X. dated June 15th, 1520, levelled at Luther by 
name, contains forty-one pretended heresies, which are extracted 
from his writings, and solemnly condemned — his books are doomed 
to the flames — and he allowed sixty dajs to recant, or meet the thun- 
ders of the Vatican. The 2rth article, by which Luther is anathe- 
matized for holding, is as follows; “Certum est in manu Ecclesiee aut 
Papge prorsus non ' esse statuere articules fidei.” Which is, word 
for word, what I said before, viz: “It is certain it is not in the pow- 
er of the Pope or churchy to ordainy or decree articles of faith.” He 
denounces this and the other forty articles as “pestiferous,” ‘‘scan- 
dalous,” “seductive errors.” — -And yet you assert that “it is tin- 
true l — My proof then, is fully forfeited. I would willingly explain 
your mistake, by referring it to ignorance — and your Being startled 


58 


CONTROVERSY. 


at the statement shows the monstrous nature of the doctrine. But 
how shall I account for your indecorum ; especially after convicting 
you of such an error ? 

I must, however, go into the defence of yet another “assertion,” as 
you style it. “Another assertion which is not true is that as to the 
Pope’s supremacy — there are no less than three systems in our (the 
Roman Catholic) church.” I give you proof of this when it vva9 
stated; but I will subjoin more. The council of Basle, A. D. 1439 
(see Caranza’s Summa Conciliorum, 33d, sessions, page 645) decreed 
as follows : “ That according to the council of Constance , it is a true 
article of Catholic faith, that a council is a above a Pope , and that 
whoever pertinaciously rejects this truth, is to be condemned as a he - 
retie.” Here, besides its own testimony, that of the Council of Con- 
stance is likewise conveyed. This is one system. It gives to the 
Pope a rank not only unequal in degree , but dissimilar in kind from 
the second system, which is called Italian , from its being thq prevail- 
ing one at Rome, as the former is called Gallic an, from its prevalence 
in France. The Italian school or second system hold to the Pope’s 
unlimited sovereignty over the church; and make him officially infal- 
lible, and virtually the church. The Council of Florenoei 5th Late- 
rian and Trent make the Pope superior to general Councils. This 
you will hardly deny; if so, I have proof at hand. Johannes De- 
votus (Vol. 1. Book l. Tit. 3. sec. 1.) on the supremacy of the Pope, 
has this caption: ‘The power of the Pope is episcopal, metropoli- 
tan, patriorchal and temporal. His decisions from the chair are. 
infallible.’ The third systems defies the Pope. According to Gre- 
gory II. ‘the whole Western nations reckoned Peter a terrestrial 
God.’ (Labb. 8. 666.) We are told that Marcellus, in the Laterail 
Council, Julius ‘‘a God on earth,” and without rebuke from the 
Council. Bellarmine on Authority of Councils, Book 2. c. 17 — • 
says; ‘all the names which are given in the Scriptures to Christ, 
even these same names are given to the Pope — whence it ap- 
pears that he is superior to the church.’ In Gratian’s Decretals, p. I . 
Dis. 96. Pope Nicholas to Michael, 7th chap, the Pope says, lie 
is a God , and therefore men cannot judge him. I might multiply 
* these proofs at pleasure. Here then are the said three systems dis- 
tinctly made out. How you can then so positively say it ‘is not true i 
our fellow-citizens must judge. 

We are now come to quite an era in this discussion, viz: the first 
defence of your rule of faith! Though it be in the sixth letter of the 
controversy, and its appearance now is only a peep at us from behind 
the clouds, yet we welcome its approach. Our rule of faith, you say, 
is laid down in the Apostles’ ^Creed. ‘I believe in the Holy Catho- 
lic Church . This rule you perceive, does not exclude, but comprises 
the belief of the Holy Scriptures.’ It may be said to be in sub- 
stance, this , the Holy Catholic Church, is the living, infallible in- 
terpreter of Scripture. Now it will be borne in mind, that before 
any church interpret, she must know what is to be interpreted. What 
do you mean then by ‘the Holy Scriptures V The Council of 
Trent has settled this question for you, infallibility (as you say,} 


CONTROVERSY. 


59 


"All the books contained in the old Vulgate Latin Edition 
are sacred and CANONICAL.’ (Decree of the Coun. Trent, 4 sess.) 
Then besides our Bible, the Roman Catholic Scriptures include a 
number of books, viz. 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ec- 
clesiasticus, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. These make a large 
volume of themselves. The Jews, our Lord Jesus, the Apostles and 
early Fathers, unite to exclude these from the canon. You ought 
then to have proved them canonical, or dropped them from the Scrip- 
tures, as a preliminary step. The former you do not attempt ; the 
latter were heresy in you. When you say then that the Holy Scrip- 
tures are comprised in your rule, you deceive the reader, — since by 
‘Holy Scriptures’ he means one thing, and you quite another thing. 
Again, in defining your rule, you omit two other very material fea- 
tures which are strongly brought to view by the Council of Trent, (4 
Sess.) 1 . They say divine truth is contained both in the written 
books and ‘in unwritten tradition.’ 2. Every Roman Catho- 
lic of every grade, binds himself solemnly as follows, “1 will never 
take or interpret them 9 (the sacred Scriptures,) otherwise than ac- 
cording to the unanimous consent of the Fathers' (See Creed of 
Pope Pius IV.) Now it is apparent from these facts, that what you 
can call divine truth is quite another thing from the Bible; and it is 
equally clear that your church is restricted by her own decrees, to 
interpret this compound of Bible, Apocrypha, and unwritten tradi- 
tion, accordiug to the unanimous consent of ‘the Fathers.* At this 
point, we see then either that ‘the fathers’ were infallible and also 
unanimous in their interpretations of Scripture; or else your church 
receives her creed from fallible men, and can have no uniformity in 
her doctrines. But ‘the Fathers,’ you will own, were fallible }; and 
that they were far from unanimous , I will presently unite with your 
Bellarmine and others, to prove. Let me here say, that the Roman 
Catholic rule, though withheld by you, is spread at large upon the re 
cords of your church, and from it I draw these definitions. If I err 
in them, the task of confutation is easy. 

Having laid down your rule of faith, you proceed to prove that it 
was established by Christ, by an appeal to the Apostolical commis- 
sion given Matt, xxviii. 17 — 20. The reader will please refer to it. 
Allow me here to put by the side of this, those passages which, 
added to it, make out the commission in full. ‘And these signs shall 
follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; 
they shall speak with new tongues.’ ‘They shall take up ser- 
pents ; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; 
they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.’ Mark xvi. 
17, 18. ‘And ye are witnesses of these things.’ — ‘And behold I 
send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city 
of Jerusalem until ye be endowed with power from on high.’ Luke 
xxiv. 48,49. ‘But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost 
is come upon you ; and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jeru- 
salem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the utmost parts ol 
the earth.’ Acts i. 8. 

Now we freely grant that the above passages confer a commission 
on the Apostles ; and that they were divinely endowed, for the dis- 
9 


60 


CONTROVERSY. 


charge of the great work which was given them to do. But on these 
texts you found the following reasoning ; ‘In the commission re - 
f erred to above , all nations and all days even to the end of the world 
are included. Therefore the fulfilment of the Saviour’s injunction, 
required that the Apostles should have successors in the ministry 
of teaching ‘ Then it is not by exercising an unfounded prero- 
gative , but in simple obedience to the injunction of Jesus Christ, 
that Catholics harken to the voice of the Church and the teaching 
of its Pastors.’ The sum of it is this: the Apostles had certain 
divine endowments for their works ; Christ intended the Apostles to 
have successors to the end of time; therefore their successors must 
have the same endowments. Now what was it that constituted an 
Apostle? (1.) No man could be an Apostle who had not been ‘an 
eyewitness’ to Christ’s person, and works. (See Luke i. 2. and 2 
Peter i. 16.) Paul says, 1 Corinthians ix 1, ‘Am I not an Apos- 
tle ?’ ‘Have 1 not seen the Lord?’ (See Acts i. 21, 22, and x. 41.) 
(2.) An Apostle must receive his mission directly from Christ , not 
by any human ordination. For this reason, Christ appeared to Paul 
visibly on his way to Damascus, and called him to the work of an 
Apostle; and this is what Paul means when he says, ‘Last of all 
he (Christ) was seen of me , as one born out of due time.’ 1 Cor. 
xv. 8. (3.) Every Apostle had miraculous and extraordinary en- 
dowments: such as inspiration, making him infallible $ the gift of 
tongues ; power to work miracles, Mark xvi. 17, 18.) and to impart 
that power to others. (2 Cor. xii. 12.) The Apostles were told, 
(Acts i. 8.) to wait at Jerusalem for these supernatural gifts ; and on 
the day of Pentecost they were accordingly furnished from on high, 
by the miraculous and extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost. — 
By these endowments, they were enabled to speak at once many lan- 
guages ; to write inspired books ; to cast out devils ; raise the dead, 
&c\ (4.) Every Apostle, as the name (one sent) signifies, and as the 

terms of the commission plainly show, was to go all abroad, with 
plenary authority ; not to be stationary ; or make his permanent seat 
any where, exclusively. Now it is obvious that the Apostles had 
no successors in these respects. It was impossible after the genera- 
tion, in which Christ lived, had passed away, that the Apostles could 
have such successors; for it was necessary to their office and work 
to have seen the Lord. But this the second generation could not 
have done. It is plain also that such a succession was never design- 
ed by our Lord, or attempted by the Christians of the next age. It 
is true that Judas had a successor; but it was before the Apostles 
were fully endued by the Spirit and sent forth. And if any were to 
have successors, why not all, as well as one. 9 Why not * James at 
Jerusalem, John at Ephesus, and Paul at Antioch, as well as Peter 
at Rome ? Why Rome more than eleven other cities ? Will not all 
the text you have quoted, apply as well to James at Jerusalem as to 
Peter at Rome? Had he not the promise of the same Holy Spirit 
to guide him as Peter? Is not John called ‘a pillar,’ (Gal. ii.9.) 
as well as Peter? Why do you single out infallibility for your suc- 
cession, and leave out all other qualifications? It is curious to re- 
mark how you omit even a reference to Mark xvi. 17. 18, where the 


CONTROVERSY. 


61 


gifts of miracles is so inseparably united to the office of an Apostle. 
You must admit, then, that there are some respects in which the 
Apostles had no successors. But if some things are wanting, your 
argument is vain. If some things are wanting, may not one of them 
be infallibility ? And if all the other superhuman endowments ceased, 
why should infallibility continue? The conclusion is irresistible, 
that the Apostles had no successors, endued with extraordinary pow- 
ers of any kind; and therefore the Roman Catholic rule of faith was 
not established by Christ. 

But yet we hold to commission still standing and binding, which 
reaches to the close of time : we believe in a visible catholic (not Ro- 
man) church, to which appertain the ministry, the oricles, and ordi- 
nances of God; which is to continue to the end of the world' — to which 
the Holy Spirit is promised as an abiding gift; against which the gates 
of hell shall not prevail; and which is at last to fill the world. Of this 
church, Jesus Christ is the only head; and the Holy Spirit speaking in 
the Bible, the only infallible rule of faith. 

You next introduce some of The Fathers/ to prove that the texts 
quoted by you were understood in their days, as you interpret them. 
I would here say that * The Fathers’ have a hard lot in your church. 
You treat them as some people do their ‘children? or as the Hin- 
doos do their idol gods ; they honour them when they serve their 
purposes ; and whip them when they do not. I have already shown 
the corrections to which they have sometimes been subjected, to 
square them to the uses of the church. Now let me bring some 
proofs directly to your purpose. Chrysostom, (who lived A. D. 398,) 
says, ‘the church is known, (tantummodo,) only by the Scrip- 
tures’ (Homil, 49 in Matt.) Bellarmine, however, says of this 
passage. ‘It is probable the author was a Catholic, but it seems to 
be none of Chrysostom’s. (De Scriptis Ecc’s. A. D. 398.) Augus- 
tine, who lived A. 1). 395, says, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon the 
rock, which thou hast confessed, upon this rock, which thou hast 
known, saying. Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, will I 
build my church; I will build thee upon me, not me upon thee.’— 
(De verb. Domni. Serm. 13.) Yet Stapleton says of it, ‘it was a 
human error caused by the diversity of the Greek and Latin tongue, 
which either he was ignorant of, or marked not.’ (Princip. doct. 
lib. 6. c. 3.) But I will pass to examine an authority quoted by your- 
self, from Tertullian, in his book of Prescriptions, &c. &c. From 
the manner in which you extract it, the author is made to testify, 
that Rome is the great centre and head, where the ‘succession’ 
from the Apostles has its seat; and where the ‘Happy Church,’ 
reigns in undisturbed supremacy. Your quotation runs thus: ‘If 
you live near Italv, you see before your eyes the Roman Church. — - 
Happy church ! to which the Apostles left the inheritance of doc- 
trines with their blood ! where Peter was crucified like his master, 
where Paul was beheaded like the Baptist.’— But let us see his en- 
tire, ungarbled statement: ‘Survey the apostolical churches, in 
which the very chairs of the Apostles still preside over their sta- 
tions, in whicli their own letters are recited, uttering the voice and 
representing the presence of each of them. Is Aehaia nearest to 


62 


CONTROVERSY. 


thee? Thou hast Corinth. If thou art not far from Macedonia, 
thou hast the Philippians and the Thessalonians. If thou canst go to 
Asia, thou hast Ephesus; but if thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome, 
whence to us also authority is near at hand.’ (Prescriptions against 
Heretics.) And now, how very different is the passage and the mean- 
ing! How directly against Peter’s supremacy and the exclusive 
claims of Rome ! How extraordinary the liberty which you take 
with the author and with historical evidence ! It was thus a man 
once proved from the 14th Psalm that there is no God— ‘The fool 
hath said in his heart, there is no God,’ is the entire verse. But 
dropping the first part of the sentence, it runs thus, ‘There is no 

You ask in the second place, ‘Is the rule infallible?’ and infer 
that it is, since it is established by Christ. I grant you thata rule 
established by Christ, is infallible. But as I have proved that Christ 
did not establish your rule, your conclusion falls to the ground. But 
let us proceed. It is not self-evident that your church is infallible, 
or your rule the true one. By what process then do you apply these 
texts to the proof of your rule ? The process, I answer, of private 
interpretation. Then I would ask, is your interpretation fallible or 
infallible ? If fallible, where is the right or safety of your interpreta- 
tion, especially when the point in question is no less than that on 
which all others depend, viz : where shall we go for an infallible 
rule? This is the more surprising, as you charge upon the use of 
private judgment ail the evils of heresy and schism, which have, in 
every age rent the church of Christ — perverted the word of God — 
and ruined the souls of men. Do you refer me to your infallible 
church? But we are inquiring after the proofs of her infallibility. 
Then does she refer me to Scripture passages for proof? But how 
can I be certain that her interpretation is correct ? Her infallibility 
does not assure me, for she has not yet proved her infallibility; and 
if she can prove her infallibility in this way , then private judgment 
is sufficient to settle the undoubted meaning of a great body of Scrip- 
ture-passages, and terminate the grand controversy, on which all 
others depend. And what then becomes of the church of Rome’s 
complaint of the great obscurity of Scripture, which is affirmed to 
render her aid so indispensible ? And what must we think of her 
outcries against the supposed arrogance of pretending to the exercise 
of free inquiry, and of judging of the Scriptures for ourselves, when, 
without such an exercise and such a power of judging, it is found 
impossible to obtain the least proof or presumption of her pretended 
infallibility? Some parts of Scripture then, the church of Rome 
herself must allow, are capable of being understood without her aid. 
Those declarations on which she rests her claim to implicate submis- 
sion and obedience, she must allow to be sufficiently plain and in- 
telligible to bind the conscience of every member of her communion, 
who is prepared to give a reason for his being a Catholic : and as an 
entire agreement with the dogmas of the church is all the faith which 
she requires, in order to the salvation of her members, she must ac- 
knowledge, as well as ourselves, that the Scripture contains a rule 
of faith sufficient for. the purpose of salvation. The only difference 


CONTROVERSY. 


63 


is, that in our opinion, the Scriptures clearly unfold a system of 
saving truth ; while in that of the (Roman) Catholics they are obscure 
in every point, except the few passages which direct us to the church , 
(the only authentic and immediate source of saving knowledge.) ‘Her 
treatment of Scripture, almost reminds us of the fabulous history of 
‘Jupiter, who ascended to supreme power by the mutilation and ban- 
ishment of his father.’ ’ — Robert Hall. 

We see then that your rule utterly fails as to the proof of itself. 
In the next place it wholly fails in its application. For either the 
Pope is infallible ; or the council ; or both united ; or the universal 
church. It seems not to be agreed among yourselves where infalli- 
bility is lodged, and therefore even at the threshold, a great difficulty 
arises. If the universal church be the seat, this is plainly useless, 
for you can never come at its decisions. If the Pope be so, the 
world must go to Rome ; or die in darkness. If a Pope, and a 
general Council united make the infallible judge, (which is not self- 
evident, and must therefore be proved,) then as Roman Catholics 
commonly believe, you have the absurdity, that two fallibles make 
an infallible. Two negatives may make an affirmative in grammar; 
but it will not do so in religion — for if you add fallible to fallible 
forever, the sum is fallible still. But if the infallible judge, (which 
is your rule of faith,) be found in the Pope and Council united, still 
it is out of the reach of the people. Such a council has not been 
held for two hundred and seventy years ! But to answer any end, it 
ought to hold a constant session. — And not only so, but it ought to be 
omnipresent — for otherwise the millions of the people, which you 
speak of, in ‘France, Scotland, Germany, Greece, Spain, Egypt, 
Palestine, China, Italy, Ireland, Peru, Canada, our own Repulic, 
and in every island, and on every continent, and in every country 
under heaven’— cannot consult this oricle. Jill these millions are 
concerned to know its declarations ; yet cannot ; and ruin ensues. 
For there are only two possible ways to reach the mass of men, viz : 
either by living-teachers, or by the decrees of councils. But both 
these methods are liable to error ; you are therefore without a rule. 
No teacher is infallible, as you allow ; the decrees of the councils 
which few possess and fewer read, are at least as obscure as the Bi- 
ble. The private interpretation of the Bible you call ‘ the grand he- 
resy of the Reformation ;’ surely then the private interpretation of 
decrees , is no less an evil ! It appears then , that your boasted infalli- 
ble rule is utterly inapplicable; and while you decry the Bible, in the 
hands of the people, as the rule of faith, you have no substitute; and 
your cause is ruined. 

I remark next, that your reasoning as to an infallible rule of faith, 
if well founded, leads us to reject every system that does not make 
all men perfect. For you agree that Christ has established an in- 
fallible rule to ‘guide us in matters of religion ,’ as well as ‘set- 
tle disputes ’ in nis church. You argue that a rule which does not 
‘settle disputes’ as to doctrine, is fallible, and therefore not Christ’s 
rule. Now by party of reasoning, a rule that does not regulate 
practice so as to make an end of sin, and make men perfect here, must 
be a fallible rule. For faith is in order to holiness— and the rule 


64 


CONTROVERSY. 


of faith looks finally ‘to the purifying of our souls even as Christ 
is ptire. 9 But your rule, I need hardly say, ‘ makes none of the 
comers thereunto perfect .’ On the contrary, one of your own dis- 
tinguished advocates said that the generality of your writers on mo- 
rals, seemed, ‘to have it as their great business , to teach how near a 
man might lawfully come , and yet not sin. 9 (Sir Thomas More.) 
Surely then if you are consistent, you should reject your rule. I do 
not see how you can retain it, and yet argue against the Bible as a 
rule of faith, because it fails to make those infallible who adopt it as 
such. 

You take peculiar pleasure in associating the Protestant name and 
cause with infidelity and extreme heresies. The names of ‘Volney 
and Priestly,’ of TJniversalists,’ ‘Unitarians, 5 &c. &c. seem to fluc- 
tuate through your fancy in close alliance with liberty of thought, with 
the use of the Bible, and the freedom of the press. Now it is very 
certain that the Bible never made a Roman Catholic; and the fear ex- 
pressed by one of the defenders of your faith in former days, that its 
free perusal made Protestants, ever haunts your royal breast. Let 
me here remind you that Atheism has always flourished most, by the 
side of the Roman shrine; and where the Bible has been opened on the 
human mind, there truth and order, like the sun, has arisen and shone 
upon the people. Compare Scotland with Spain; Holland with Italy; 
Prussia with Portugal; England with France; our own country with 
the Mexican or South American States. \V hat has made the im- 
mense difference P The Bible , read without restraint, and multiplied 
without limit, and preached with boldness and fidelity to a thinking 
people. Having no space now for this topic, I promise in future num- 
bers, to give you ample proof of the intimate union between Roman- 
ism and infidelity, and Romanism and extreme heresy. 

You slip the case of ‘the collier’ with far nearer approaches to pro- 
fanity than right reasoning. It is possible ‘your rule of faith may be 
fallible;’ or your collier may be ‘deranged,’ when he begins to inquire 
and think, after the slumber of his faculties for some half a century, 
under the Roman anodyne of implicit faith. But surely it ought 
never to be made an alternative in a proposition, that ‘Jesus Christ 
was a Juggler!’ Suppose, however, you apply the illustration to 
any other book, say the creed of Pius IV. or the ‘Book of Bulls,’ or 
‘The Fathers.’ Has language not a fixed meaning? Are there not 
plain rules for its interpretation ? Can we not understand a book be- 
cause one man says it means this, and another that, and a third some- 
thing else ? And must we call the Bible a fallible guide , because 
some men may, and will, wrest it ? Must we pin our faith to the Pope’s 
sleeve, because we are liable to error ? Yet this is all you have to say 
in defence of implicit truth. The sum of it is this — that the collier 
does (even as we had said,) believe what he is told, and because he is 
told it; but is better to do so, than worse; and he will do worse if he- 
thinks for himself. 

You next attempt an oblique defence* of your rule from the many 
objections which I have brought against it. In page 51, last 
paragraph, you say, ‘ article of faith and morals are the only objects 
of definition and transmission; neither does the church claim, nor 


CONTROVERSY. 


65 


has she exercieecl the right of creating new articles of faith” Now 
I ask, did not the Council of Trent make new articles of faith? Did 
she not order a new Creed, containing these 12 articles, and binding 
all her communion to hold them, under pain of spiritual death? A nd 
were there not even new sacraments among these articles? I referred 
you for proof to the literary fraud by which * extreme unction ,’ was 
attempted to be made a sacrament, in your church standards. You are 
silent about it! What 1 have said above about Leo X’s condemnation 
of Luther, plainly shows that you differ from him, and that he claim- 
ed the right not only to ‘define’ but 'create' articles of faith, and ‘im- 
pose them on men for their belief. ’ Transubstantiation, indulgences, 
taking the cup from the laity in the Lord’s Supper, and five of your 
seven sacraments are palpable innovations; are new articles of faith, 
brought in by your church from age to age, and gathered up, and put 
into the creed, by the Council of Trent. 

In your second answer ‘to objections ,’ page 52, you pass by the 
questions by saying ‘discipline may vary.’ I suppose it is a point of 
discipline to forbid the use of the Scriptures; to restrict the freedom 
of the press; to claim the government of kingdoms; to establish the 
inquisition; to burn heretics; aud encourage extended and bloody mas- 
sacres; and of the YValdenses aud Hugonots! Under this head too, I 
suppose you comprehend your apology for the * ambitious projects’ of 
‘individual Popes.’ This is strange language! ‘Individual Popes!’ 
And yet is this all you can reply to all 1 have brought from the Popes 
and from the councils, showing that your system is incompatible with 
personal and civil liberty? Your allusion to the Presbyterian minis- 
ter now in the state prison of New York, is legitimate. W T e mourn 
over such men — we depose them from their office; for we do not think, 
with your church, that a man may, like Judas, be a good Pope , and yet 
a bad man. The history of your Popes is the blackest page of human 
story. The moral of ‘bad man and good Pope’ reminds us of the 
Archbishop, (he was also a prince) who swore profanely in the pres- 
ence of a peasant; the peasant exclaimed with surprise, * Archbishop , 
do you swear?’ ‘JYo.’ he replied, ‘I swear as a prince .’ ‘ Then? said 

the peasant, * When Satan comes for the prince , what will become of 
the archbishop ?’ 

I will refer to only one other evasion of yours. You answer my 
statement, that the Pope held a great anniversary at Rome, to bless 
all sorts of beasts (while he curses Bible societies) with an unworthy 
levity, about ‘a similar operation over a good piece of beef’ I have 
been accustomed to think that such a service was thanking God, and 
asking his blessing on ourselves , not on the food we eat . But the su- 
perstition and darkness of that Pontiff who can encourage such an 
anniversary, and the degraded condition of ‘the Mother and mistress 
of churches,’ who can uphold such a celebration, remain still unex- 
plained. If, however, the blessings were confined to dead beasts, and 
the anathemas removed from living men ivho circulate the Pible, it 
might be pitied, if not defended. 

Your objections on the points of infant baptism, the change of the 
Sabbath, and the practices of our church as to the pastoral relation, 


66 


CONTROVERSY. 


surely have little to do with the rule of fath. The 1st and 2d come 
appropriately under the. subject of tradition, on which you yet are si- 
lent. I will here only say that we find satisfactory proof for all the 
three practices in the word of God; or we would discard them. We 
reject not testimony which sustains our doctrines; (not opinions) but 
we look not to * unwritten tradition ’ for their support; and ‘if the can- 
dlestick of the Roman angel were removed to-morrow,’ we lose not a jot 
of proof on any subject, except that of the depravity of man. But 
more of this hereafter, when, Providenc permitting, we hope to satisfy 
you in still further defending and illustrating the true rule of faith, 
1 . e. the Holy Spirit speaking in the Bible. 

I have been informed that Bishop Kenrick did, on the 17th of Fe- 
bruary last, in St. Mary’s church, (Philadelphia) publicly warn the 
people against reading tins controversy. I ask, is this true or not ? 
If it be, it is not only a manifest interference, but a portentous intima- 
tion. I remain, Sir, yours, &c. John Breckinridge. 


CONTROVERSY No. VII. 


RULE OF FAITH. 

Philadelphia, March 1 5, 1 833. 
To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 

Rev . Sir , — The first paragraph of your last letter, purports to be 
an epitome of our preliminary arrangements, and of the victories you 
have gained since the campaign has been regularly opened. In re- 
ference to the former I had thought, that our readers must have been 
sufficiently punished by the publication of a correspondence which 
was as tedious as it was puerile. Ten minutes’ frank conversation 
would have settled the rules of this discussion. The perusal of those 
letters, like Swift’s meditation on a broomstick, showed how much 
could be made of a trifle. Finally, however, we reached the goal; 
the rules were arranged and signed by mutual agreement. If there is 
any thing more to-be said on the subject, let it be reversed for the 
Appendix. But I cannot consent that these same rules which cost us 
so much trouble, should be constructed into mere ‘modes and forms.* 
You, indeed, have hitherto treated them as such, and thus compelled 
me to expose your violation of them. If I had compared the Protes- 
tant rule of faith, with Calvin’s blasphemy, in asserting that God is 
the author of sin, and that Jesus Christ spoke ironically, when he di- 
rected the young man in the Gospel to keep the commandments, such 
reasoning would have been violating the rules. Because it would 
have been taking for granted, what you deny ; but you, on the con- 
trary, have assailed all those doctrines of your church which Protes- 
tants have rejected; and instead of comparing our rule of faith with, 
your own definition of the true principle, you appeal to the tri- 
bunal of prejudice where it had been already condemned! I say that 
the doctrines of the Catholic church are the true doctrines of Jesus 
Christ — and that Protestants, in rejecting them, have' forsaken the 
fountains of living water, and digged to themselves broken cisterns. 
But I should be sorry to make this assertion the basis of an argument 
against your rule of faith. For you would very properly say, that I 
was begging the question by such a procedure. _ It seems, you find 
the strict principles of logic irksome, and all things considered, I am 
not surprised at it. Nevertheless, they are and must continue to be 
the polar star of this discussion. 

But then your victories! ‘You have exposed our rule’ — ‘you have 
proved its utter fallibility’ — ‘you have shown that our church has va- 
ried in doctrine from age to age’ — ‘you have shown that our rule is not 
only entirely fallible , but greatly evil,’ not only ‘greatly evil’ — but it 
‘ usurps the prerogatives cf God ’— not only ‘it usurps the preroga- 
tives of God,’ BUT it ‘is incompatible with personal or civil lib- 
erty,’ &c. In short, one is at a loss to imagine what it is, that you 
have not ‘shown.’ And what was my reply to all these ‘showings?’ 
Chiefly that they violate the rules!!! 

10 


68 


CONTROVERSY. 


Among the ancient Romans, it was for the senate to vote the ho- 
nours of a triumph ; and to you I need not hint, that the patience 
with which a Roman general, at the head of his victorious legions, 
waited the decision of the senate , furnishes a beautiful example of re- 
publican modesty, — -and, conveys a moral. It was only in the de- 
generate times, when boys were emperors, and emperors were ty- 
rants, that it became fashionable for a man to wreath his own brows 
with the laurel of victory*— for having simply ‘marched an army up 
the hill, then marched them down again.’ 

Still on the subject of what you have ‘shown , 5 and ‘proved 5 and 
accomplished, all our readers will form their own judgment, — That 
you intended to do all you have said, I make not the least doubt; but 
beware of the ‘doctrine of intentions . 5 For be assured, that what- 
ever opinion you may form of your own labours, the public begin to 
look upon your situation, (in reference to the kule of faith at least) 
as somewhat like that of Pyrrhus, when he exclaimed, on the battle 
field: ‘Give me another victory like this , and I am ruined . 5 

In my last letter, I said that one or two of your assertions were 
‘’untrue . 5 I expressed, at the same time, my regret that you had left 
it in my power , or rather compelled me, so to characterize them. For 
religion always suffers, when they, who profess to be her ministers, 
violate, even in the slightest degree, those sacred principles of moral 
integrity which constitute the bond of well-ordained society, and the 
foundation of honour;— even as it is understood in the ordinary trans- 
actions and intercourse of men. It was on this ground, that I con- 
sidered the ( task painfulS I did not, nor do I now, make the slight- 
est charge against you personally; but I perceived that my sugges- 
tion to be cautious in quoting authorities, had been slighted . I per- 
ceived from your letter to the young lady in Baltimore, that you were 
ready to take up, as weapons of destruction, those antiquated calum- 
nies, by which the ‘delusion 5 of Protestanism has sustained itself, 
against the apostolical evidences of the Catholic religion for the last 
three hundred years. A rid that, without intending it, perhaps, you 
would copy the falsehoods, which have been asserted one thousand 
times by your predecessors in controversy, and as often refuted by 
mine. I perceived that you had forgotten the philosophy of the Holy 
Scripture, which tells us ‘the Ethiopian cannot change the colour of 
his skin , 5 nor ‘the leopard his spots , 5 —that the proposition, which was 
false, when it was asserted for the first time, cannot become true , by 
multitudinous repetition. All this I had perceived before we began 
this controversy. My experience since, has not disappointed my an- 
ticipations. I told you that Usher , was a Protestant Archbishop; al- 
though you had placed him side by side with St. Thomas Aquinas as a 
faithful expositor of Catholic doctrine; — you were candid enough 
since, to acknowledge that I was right; and to plead that the error was 
to be ascribed to ‘some strange mistake of printing . 5 But how comes 
it that this ‘strange mistake 5 has not been corrected ? How comes it, 
that the sentence ‘of Usher’s authority, among Romanists we • need 
not speak 5 — is still going the rounds of the Protestant newspapers, 
for the edification of the illiterate and the amusement of the learned? 


CONTROVERSY. 


63 


Ja vour last letter but one, you asserted that ‘Luther was condemn* 
ed for saying ‘it is not in the power of the church or the Pope to con- 
stitute (‘new’) articles of faith.’ ” I replied, that this assertion was 
‘untrue;’ and if the word seem uncourteous, you must blame the pov- 
erty of the English language, which could not furnish me with any 
other to express my exact meaning . Luther’s words are these— 
“Certum est in manu Ecclesise aut Papse prorsus non esses " statuere 
articulos fidei , imo nec leges morum, seu bonorum opertum.’ 27. The 
literal translation of which is this: ‘It is certain that it is not in the 
power of the church or the Pope to define or determine articles of 
faith, nor even laws of morals or good works.’ In your first transla- 
tion you inserted the word ‘new’ before ‘articles;’ in your second, 
you deem it more prudent to leave it out — and yet you have the cour- 
age to say, that your second version is ‘word for word what you , 
had said before.’ Let the reader compare them. It was yourself. 
Rev. Sir, and not Luther, that spoke of new articles of faith. Here, 
then, is my first plea for having said the assertion was ‘untrue.’ 

My second is, that Luther, thanks to his Catholic education, was 
too good a classical scholar to use the word * stature ’ if he. had meant 
exclusively ‘to create,’ or- — according to the liberal translation which 
you first gave it, to ‘constitute new articles of faith.’ Every one, the 
feast acquainted with ecclesiastical language, knows that statuere is a 
kind of standing or technical word , to express the judgment of a 
council or other authoritative body, in determining questions, or deci- 
ding controversies. If this is not sufficient, let us recur back to the 
good old Latin terms, when Livy said, ‘Statuere terminos’— -‘to fix, 
settle, or determine the boundaries.’ Cicero, ‘Statuere, documen- 
tum’ — ‘to deliver instruction.’ Flatus, ‘Statuere, navem’ — ‘to bring 
the ship to anchor.’ This, according to your vocabulary, ought, I sup- 
pose, to be translated — ‘to constitute a new ship’ — nr ‘create a ship.’ 
And yet, you say, towards the close of your last letter, ‘What I have 
said above of Leo the tenth’s condemnation of Luther, plainly shows 
that you (Mr. Hughes) differ from him, and that he claimed the right 
not only to ‘define,’ but to ‘create’ articles of faith, and impose them 
on men for their belief P 

My third plea is; that the Bull of Leo X. censured, en masse, all 
the forty-one propositions of Luther. One of which was, that the 
‘Contrition which a man conceives from considering the multitude, 
grievousness and defilement of his sin; — the loss of heaven, and ex- 
posure of hell; — that this kind of contrition or repentance makes him 
a hypocrite and a greater sinnerP This was one of the proposi- 
tions. 

How then. Rev. Sir, came you to assert and repeat, that 'Leo X* 
condemned Luther simply for saying ’ (what in fact Luther never 

* “Contrito qu£ pcratur per discussionem, collationem, et detestationem pee- 
catorum, qua quis recogitet annos suos in amaritudine animae suae, ponderando 
peccatorum gravitatem, multitiidinem, amissionem aeternae beatitudinis, nc <eter- 
nae damnationis acquisitionem, haec contritie facit hypocritam , imo mac is pet€Q- 
toTem P Luther’s 6th proposition included in the Lull of Leo X. 


70 


CONTROVERSY. 


meant to say) ‘that it is not in the power of the church or the Pope 
to constitute new articles of faith?’ ’ In reference to this matter 
therefore, without pretending to much knowledge, I must decline be- 
ing protected by the shield of ‘ignorance,’ which you have charitably 
offered me. If you have no use for it, you might hang it up amidst 
the other trophies of your victory. Thus it is, that you are warrant- 
ed in saying, that ‘the nerves of my cause are cracking under the 
pressure of truth!’ 

But, it is difficult to conceive, how you could have imagined that 
Bishop Kendrick ever dreamt of ‘publicly’ for even privately) ‘warn- 
ing the people against reading this controversy.’ Be assured, Rev. 
Sir, that he regards, as too precious, this opportunity of letting the 
people see what kind of weapons are employed on your side, in as- 
sailing the everlasting foundations of their religion. They, certainly, 
invade no man’s rights, when they claim the simple faculty of know- 
ing what they believe; — and in the enjoyment of this faculty, they 
are highly amused at the successive portraits of their belief, which 
proceed from your pencil. The Pope, or a General Council, if any 
doctrinal controversy w r ere to arise in the church, might determine 
what they ought to believe; butyou go a little farther, and tell them 
exactly what they do believe. Bishop Kendrick has too great a zeal 
for the religion of Christ, not to allow the reading of this controversy: 
and if there were any doubts in the minds of Catholics as to the di- 
vine origin of their faith, the perusal of your letters would be quite 
as effectual in removing them, as that of mine. What will even Pro- 
testants conclude, when they perceive, that you labour to support 
3 'our positions by assertions, which arc untrue? Shall I quote another 
instance? In your letter. No. 4. of this controversy, you assert, that 
‘the Catechism of the Council of Trent, repeats only four words of 
the second commandment, arid closes with an expressive ‘ et extern .’ 
Now, every Catholic throughout the world, that ever regd the, Cate- 
chism of the Council of Trent, knows that this assertion is untrue !* 
And still you begin your last letter with a flourish of trumpets to 
sound my defeat, and proclaim that ‘the nerves of my cause are 
cracking under the pressure of truth.’ Protestants themselves will 
begin to learn the real state of the case; — and the means, by which 
their religious opinions are vindicated, will begin to have a reflex op- 
eration which you little suspect. 

Will the public deem it too much, if I request you to correct these 
assertions; and henceforward to quote the entire passage or text of 
our authors, on which you build an argument? 

Since your allusion to Bishop Kendrick has led me, into this epis- 
ode, I may as well close it with a little incident which occurred to my- 
self last spring, and does not therefore depend on ‘information.’ I 
happened to go into the session-room of the ‘General Assembly,’ and 
found the ‘Bishops’ engaged in settling a question, which I soon dis- 
covered to be interesting; viz: ‘Whether baptism, administered by 
a Catholic Priest, is valid?’ A committee, it seems, had been ap-^ 
pointed to draw up a report, which was being read when I entered." 

*Pars III. de Decal obser. De primo prrecepto C. I. 16. 


CONTROVERSY. 


71 


The committee had decided in the negative, and in support of this 
decision, reported a variety of reasons, with two of which I was par- 
ticularly struck. One was, that they "(Catholic Priests) baptized in 
Latin; as if infants were not quite as well acquainted with this lan- 
guage , as with any other. The second was, that they (Catholic Priests) 
baptize with oil — -a discovery reported on the authority of a certain 
Doctor, I think, of Maryland. It was listened to with great, but si- 
lent solemnity — although there were at the moment jive baptismal 
founts , in as many Catholic churches, within half a mile of where the 
Assembly was sitting: — and though it is known to all the world that 
that Catholic baptism is, and ever has been, with water. I retired 
from the presence of these ‘Teachers in Israel,’ resolving in my mind, 
the words of our blessed Redeemer; ‘If, in th z green wood they do 
these'things, what shall be done in the dry P 

But to return to your assertions. You stated that is a principle of 
Catholics, ‘that if the Pope were to command vice and prohibit virtue, 
he is to be obeyed.’ Now it is a fact, that Bellarmine, to whom you 
reier,* used these ivords , to express the absurd and impious conse- 
quence, that would flow from the opinion which he was then re- 
futing! Just as I argued that the Protestant rule of faith, as exem- 
plified in the case of the ‘collier,’ would lead to the impious alterna- 
tive, that ‘Christ was a juggler.’ W ill you have the courage to deny, 
that Bellarmine made the statement, to show the absurd and immoral 
consequence that would flow from the argument he ivas refuting ? — 
What then will Protestants think of such perversions? Again, you 
refer to the 16th canon of the 3d Council of Lateran, on the ‘validity 
of oaths’ — to show that, according to the Catholic doctrine, ‘an oath, 
contrary to ecclesiastical utility, is perjury , not an oath !’ (Mr. Breck- 
inridge — conclusion of Letter No. 2.) Now what is the fact? That 
the Council was legislating on cases of ecclesiastical elections , where 
a factious minority pleaded the obligation of a previous oath , to jus- 
tify their dissent from the voice and vote of the majority .t Just as 
if the Supreme Court were to say, that an oath, taken under the late 
‘Ordinance’ of South Carolina, is to be considered not an oath, but 
rather perjury. What will Protestants think, of this perversion? 
or of the cause which required it ? Will you have the candour to 
publish the errata ? 

If, instead of being the advocate of truth, I were merely the repre- 
sentative of a party, I might triumph in this exposition, which I chal- 
lenge you to contravene , But I am not the person to enjoy such a 
triumph; and it would have been infinitely more grateful to my feel- 
ings, both as a Christian and as a man, if you had spared me the ne- 
cessity of making this exposure. 


*“Secundo, quia tunc necessario erraret, etiam circa fidem. Nam tides Catho- 
lica docet omnem vtrtutem esse bonam , omne virtium esse malum : Si autem Papa 
erraret, praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere 
vitia esse bona et virtutes esse mala, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccara.” 
Bellarmine, Lib. iv. de Rom. Pont. C. V. 

fNec nostram constitutionme impediat, si forte aliques ad conservandam Ec- 
clesiae suae consuetudinem juramento se dicat adstrictum: non enim dicenda sunt 
juramenta, sed potius perjuria, quae contra utilitateni Ecclesiasticam et sancto- 
rum Patrum veniunt instituta.” Con, Lat. C. xvi. 


72 


CONTROVERSY. 


Another point, on which we are at issuers the ‘Pope’s supremacy.' 
You had asserted, that on this subject ‘there are no less than three sys- 
tems in our church.’ This assertion I pronounced to be, what it is, 
‘untrue.’ I gave you the whole universe, and challenged you to name 
so much as one Catholic, who denied the Pope’s supremacy ! You 
have not been able to discover one. The supremacy of the Pope and 
the infallibility of the church , are articles of Catholic faith and doc- 
trine: — and on no point of Catholic doctrine are there three , or even 
two systems, in our church. We have one Lord , one faith , and one 
baptism. You refer to the authority of the Council of Basle — but that 
Council became a spurious assembly, after the Pope’s legates, and 
greater part of the Bishops, retired from it to Ferrara— and those, 
who remained, had about as much authority to define a tenet of Catho- 
lic doctrine, as Luther had to excommunicate the Pope, which iTe did 
right manfully, by way of returning a compliment, which his Holiness 
had recently paid him. 2dly. Even this spurious remnant of a Coun- 
cil did not pass any decree affecting the dogma of the Pope’s supre- 
macy. That which you have quoted, relates to a supposed case, in 
which an actual Pope and an actual Council, should be opposed to each 
other, and it was decided that in such a case the preponderance of au- 
thority should belong to the Council. This decision, though emanat- 
ing from a spurious source, and founded on hypothesis, does not even 
question the Pope’s supremacy as an article of Catholic doctrine.— 
Devoti’s testimony has reference, in the very teoct, to the Pope’s in- 
fallibility, which is not an article of faith , but between which and 
supremacy, it seems you are unable, or unwilling to make a distinc- 
tion. These, then, are your first two systems. — The third, you tell us 
‘deifies the Pope ’ — this acknowledges the very plentitude of suprema- 
cy. But how can you be serious, when you make this assertion ? If 
some of our citizens were to theorize on the constitution of our go- 
vernment — one school teaching that Congress is superior to the Pre- 
sident — another, that the President is superior to Congress — would 
that circumstance warrant an English traveller to publish tohis coun- 
trymen, that the ‘Americans are divided into two systems’ on the sub- 
ject of the President’s supremacy as chief magistrate of the whole 
republic ? And if some orator, in the glow of patriotic reminiscence, 
which the fourth of July usually inspires, should happen to say, ‘the 
god -like Washington, the saviour of his country,’ would that prove 
that the ‘Americans deify the Presidents?’ Here are ‘three systems,’ 
on which even Mrs. Trollope could build a fine tale, if she could 
only induce people to believe it. But, just lend me the ‘Protestant 
rule of faith’ for a few minutes , and I will prove from Scripture, 
that it is right to call the Pope God. ‘You are Gods.’ Psalms ixxxi. 
6. — ‘I have appointed the God of Pharaoh.’ Exod. vii. 1. See also 
Exod. xxii. 38. John x. 34. Now, Rev. Sir, I return you your rule 
of faith , and hope you will be satisfied with my proof, since ‘I give 
you chapter and verse for it.’ But as to the ‘three systems’ of doc- 
trine in our church, on the subject of the Pope’s supremacy, — you 
might as well look for ‘three suns’ in the heavens. Throughout the 
whole universe there is but one system of doctrine among Catholics 


CONTROVERSY. 


73 


on this point. Every proposition asserting the contrary is ‘untrue.* 
Name, if you can, a Catholic in the whole world, who has publically 
denied that supremacy, without breaking the bond of communion and 
membership which united him to the church. 

We have now arrived at your review of my arguments in favour of 
the Catholic rule of faith. In my last letter I gave the authority of 
Scripture to prove that Jesus Christ established a Church, by giving a 
divine commission to his apostles and their legitimate successors un- 
til the end of the world — that this commission extended to the teaching 
of all nations— that to this commission he attached the attribute of 
his own infallibility. ‘As the Father hath sent me, so do I send you’ 
— »‘He that hears you, hear me; and he that despises you, despises me; 
and he that despises me, despises him that sent me.’ 

How did you, Rev. Sir, answer these arguments ? Did you deny 
the authorities ? Did you detect error in the reasoning P Did you 
accuse me of illogical deducations? Notat all. You have recourse 
to the old method of distortion; and tell us my rule of faith is ‘in sub- 
stance this:’ ‘ the Holy Catholic Church is the living infallible inter- 
preter of Scripture.’ And then you deduce your own consequence 
from your own distortion of my argument. ‘Now it will be borne in 
mind, that before any church can interpret , it must know what is to 
be interpreted.’—* What do you mean by the Holy Scriptures ?’ — ‘the 
Council of Trent had settled the question, &c.’ — And then having 
worked out the distortion to your own purposes, you tilt away at the 
Council of Trent, and affect to wonder that I did not begin by set- 
tling the canon of Scripture, instead of proving ‘the rule of faith !’ — 
The canon of Scripture held by the Council of Trent, is the same that 
was settled by the Council of Carthage in 397. And if John Calvin, 
in the i 6th century , thought proper to become a Protestant against 
some books of the canon, it is for his followers to look to it. But 
when you say that the ‘Jews, our Lord Jesus, the apostles, and early 
fathers, unite to exclude them from the canon’ — you make another 
of those assertions which might be indecorous to call by its proper 
appellation. 

It does not appear that ‘our Lord Jesus’ or ‘the apostles’ ever de- 
termined or wrote upon the subject of such exclusion, which they cer- 
tainly would have done, if the ‘Scripture alone’ had been intended as 
the rule, of Christian faith. 

Your next alternative to evade the consequences flowing from the 
commission given by Jesus Christ to his apostles, is to collate withif, 
those texts which communicated the power of miracles. These cer- 
tainly do not destroy the commission which extended to ‘all nations 
in all days, even to the consummation of the world.’ Now either 
the apostles had successors , for the discharge of the commission, or 
they had not. If they had , then your position is untenable. If they 
had not, then please to tell us, what Christ could have meant by com- 
manding the teaching of all nations during all days, even until the 
end of the world. Was he speaking ironically ? If they had not — 
what did St. Paul mean, by saying of the Christian ministry, no man 
iaketh his hoqour to himself, but he who is called of Cod, as was 
Aaron ? What did he mean, by appointing Titus, and Timothy and 


74 


CONTROVERSY. 


instructing them to appoint other faithful men for the discharge of 
the same commission? 

The little sophism, about the meaning of the word apostle (one 
sent,) has not the merit of much ingenuity. However, according to 
your logic, in order to ‘be sent’ one must have ‘seen the Lord,’ 
and as the second generation had not seen the Lord, therefore, the 
apostles had no successors!! But pray, did the commission to teach 
all nations during all days , extend only to those who had seen the 
Lord? Did it also expire with ‘the last apostle?'* If it was dis- 
charged in the second generation, were not those by whom it was dis- 
charged, in so much, the regular successors of the apostles? This 
is what I contend for. Had general Washington no successors in 
the presidency of this Republic, for the very logical reason, that they 
succeeded him, and their appointment differed, in some circumstan- 
ces from his? Jesus Christ gave a commission extending to all nations 
and all ages of the word. Mr. Breckinridge says that the commission 
ceased to be discharged after the first generation,-— inasmuch as it 
was given to the twelve apostles, who lived but a few years and *had 
no successors .’ Which shall we believe? Do not the society of 
‘Friends’ view baptism , and the Universalists, everlasting punishment, 
in the same arbitrary lights of analogy ! And if your assertion on 
this subject be credited, will it not become natural, or rather un- 
avoidable, for men to believe that Jesus Christ was merely sporting 
with human language, and immortal souls? 

But how comes it, that even Presbyterian clergymen apply to them- 
selves (when it suits them,) every text , by which the Son of God 
commissioned his apostles to * teach all nations ;’ to preach the 
gospel to every creature, and to evangelize the world? It is not a 
contradiction in terms for them to claim the authority of a succes- 
sion which they deny? It is no wonder that the ranks of infidelity 
should thicken around us. As long as the human mind is governed 
by the ordinary laws, men must and will look for consistency some- 
where : either in the desperate alternative of total scepticism, or in 
the bosom of the Catholic church, from which the fathers separated. 
When we hear you asserting that the ‘apostles had no successors,’ 
would it not be proper that some one should move at the next Gene- 
ral Assembly, that the following article be expunged from the ‘West- 
minster Confession of Faith.’ 

‘To these (church officers) the keys of the kingdom of heaven are 
committed, by virtue whereof they have power to retain and remit sins, 
to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the word and 
censure; and to open it unto penitent sinners by the ministry of the 
Gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.’ 
Chap. xxx. art. 1 1. page 166. 

These are modest pretensions for gentlemen who assert that the 
Apostles had no successors. Now I had always thought that these 
same keys belonged to St. Peter and his successsrs. I know by 
whom and to whom they were originally given, and to whom they 
still belong, if priority of title and possession be admitted. But as 
Mr. Breckinridge had informed me, that the apostles had no succes- 
sors, I was at a loss to imagine what had become of the ‘keys’ — 


CONTROVERSY. 


75 


Until peeping into the ‘Confession of Faith,’ I learned to my great edi- 
fication, that they had been miraculously discovered at Westmins- 
ter, England, in the year of our Lord, 1647, and graciously fastened, 
by act ot Parliament, to the belt of the Presbyterian Church ! 

The whole of your strange position, against the institution of the 
* Catholic rule of faith,’ is founded on the assertion, that the ‘Apostles 
had no successors’- — an assertion, which is inconsistent with the char- 
acter and extent of the commission given by the Saviour. How could 
Christ impart such a commission without providing for its fulfil- 
ment ; and how could he provide for its fulfilment without succes- 
sion in the ministry of teaching? Therefore, unless you make it ap- 
pear, that Christ has deceived us, it will follow as a necessary conse- 
quence, according to the proofs and reasoning of my last letter, that 
the promise of infallibility was made to the Apostles, and the Pastors 
of the churches, their legitimate successors, in the ministry of teach- 
ing all nations, during all days, even to the consummation of time: — 
and not the private interpretation of the Bible . Consequently, that 
the Catholic rule of faith is the true rule, having been ‘established by 
the Son of God himself.’ 

I said that this Catholic rule is infallible, and in your reply, you 
‘grant that if it was established by Christ, it is infallible .’ But then 
you say, that you have proved that Christ did not establish our rule, 
and my conclusion fills to the ground. Indeed, Rev. Sir, the language 
of Christ , the language and practice of the Apostles, the practice of 
the Christian church for 1800 years, and your own Confession of 
Faith stand against you, and show that you have proved no such 
thing. And if you had much confidence in either the strength or evi- 
dence of your ‘proofs,’ so called, — it would have been superflous in 
you to attempt the exposition of its fallibility . You say, that ‘it is 
not self-evident that our church is infallible, or our rule the true one. 
By what process, then,’ you ask me, ‘do I apply these texts to the 
proof of my rule?’ You answer the question yourself. ‘The pro- 
cess of private interpretation .’ On this question and answer you 
build an argument, to show that I arrive at the proofs of the divine 
establishment of the Catholic rule, by my own private interpretation 
of the Scriptures : — and so, I am obliged to have recourse to the Pro- 
testant principle in the last resort . I had answered this objection, be- 
fore it was written, by showing, that in the Catholic church every 
doctrine, and every proof of our doctrine, is reduced to a simple mat- 
ter of fact: — That these texts have been understood, as I have used 
them, in all countries and ages : — That their authority, merely as 
historical evidence , establishes the point, and shows that Christ insti- 
tuted a ministry of teaching , to transmit to all nations the knowl- 
edge of the doctrines which he revealed: — That to this ministry he 
promised his own perpetual presence — all of which are facts, with 
which the principle of private interpretation has as little to do, as it 
has with ascertaining whether or not the city of Philadelphia was 
founded by William Penn. For the farther proof of this, I refer the 
reader to my own arguments in the last letter, which you took good 
care not to assail. 

Your next position may be called the argument of confusion.— 

11 


76 


CONTROVERSY. 


‘Either the Pope is infallible, or the Council : or both united: or the 
universal church. It seems not to be agreed among yourselves, where 
infallibility is lodged , and therefore even at the threshold a great dif- 
ficulty arises.’ Christ, Rev. Sir, was not less the Son of God, be- 
cause, ‘he was a scandal to the Jews and a stumbling block to the 
Gentiles.’ The distorted portraits which Protestants writers have 
drawn of the infallibility, as well as of the- other doctrines of the 
Catholic church, may, indeed, raise difficulties at the ‘threshold,’ and 
prejudice may regard them as insurmountable. We can see no diffi- 
culty whatever. Every definition of doctrine and morals by a Gene- 
ral Council is infallible. It was of such definitions (according to 
Catholic interpretation) that Chirst said: ‘He that hears you hears me? 
and ‘he that will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heath- 
en and the publican.’ J\*o Council is General or (Ecumenical iv it h- 
out the pope’s concurrence. Consequently, the spiritual empire of 
Christ is not divided in the Catholic church. A man may be a very 
good Catholic, without inquiring, whether the Pope is officially infal- 
lible or not. He may even hold it as an opinion, that he is not infal- 
lible, and neither Priest, nor Bishop, nor Pope will frown upon him 
for his opinion. The Pastors of the church are not, like the Re- 
formers of the sixteenth century, the creators, but they are mere- 
ly the guardians and expositors of the doctrines, which they de- 
rived from Jesus Christ and his apostles. They are the witnesses of 
truth , and they are warranted by a sacred authority, to reject even 
‘an angel from heaven,’ if that angel attempt to preach another 
doctrine besides that which they have received. They all teach the 
same doctrines . But let me show your argument in a light, which 
does not require the use of a * sectarian telescope .’ All Americans 
agree that these United States are independent. Now w r ould it be 
an argument against this independence, if any one should raise ‘diffi- 
culties,’ by asking where this independence *is lodged ’ — whether in 
the President — or in the Congress — or in both united — or in the 
whole Republic. 

Is it not the promise of Jesus Christ, that he would be with the 
apostles and their successors in the ministry of ‘teaching,’ until the 
end of the world, as good a guarantee, for the infallibility of the 
Church , as the immortal ‘declaration’ is, for the independence of our 
country? Would Christ be with a ministry, which is supposed by 
Protestant opinions, to have been teaching error and idolatry for a 
thousand years before the ‘Reformation’ was born, or for three hun- 
dred since. If he was not, what became of his pledge and promises ? 
Do you not perceive, Rev. Sir, how questionable your assertions would 
render the veracity of Christ ? And how they tend to shake the 
very foundations of Christianity? Do you imagine that the fulfil- 
ment of these promises, is to be overturned by a rule of grammar ?— 
‘Two negatives make an affirmative.’ 

I must now* show the reader, what a chemicological process the 
arguments of my last letter were doomed to undergo in New York. 
*1 remark,’ says Mr. Breckinridge, ‘that your reasoning, as to an 
infallible ‘rule of of faith,’ if well founded, leads us to reject every 
system ,that does not make all men perfect For you agree that 


CONTROVERSY. 


77 


Christ has established an infallible rule to guide us in matters of 
religion, as well as to settle disputes in his church. You argue, that 
a rule, which does not settle disputes, as to doctrine, is fallible, and 
therefore, not Christ’s rule. Now, by parity of reasoning, a rule 
that does not regulate practice, so as to make an end of sin, and 
make men perfect here, must be a fallible rule.’ This reasoning is 
your own, dear sir, and I would not spoil it by a single word of com- 
ment. 

Y ou next complain that I should have adduced the arguments of 
Yolney, Priestly, and what you call ‘extreme heresies,’ to show the 
inconclusiveness of your reasoning, against the Catholic doctrines.— 
Unitarians, Universalists, &c. (whom,! suppose, you intend to desig- 
nate by ‘extreme heresies’) are the legitimate descendants of the Pro- 
testant rule of faith. And,fif every man has a right to interpret the 
meaning of the Bible for himself, it becomes someting like nonsense, 
in the ear of reason, for one Protestant to call the opinions of anoth- 
er Protestant by the name of ‘heresy.’ What do they, but iNquiRE, 
think, and exercise the privilege which you proclaim to be the 
right of all. Will you have them to stop thinking at the point where 
Presbyterians have halted? Will you say to the ocean of their 
thought; * hitherto thou shalt come, but no farther V That ocean is 
too boundless to be hemmed in by the ‘Westminster Confession.’ — 
Its course is onward — and the present condition of Protestants in 
Germany, where infidelity is preached from the pulpit, and prov- 
ed from the Bible, by the Protestant rule of faith, shows how it can 
sweep away the feeble remnants of Christianity, that were spared by 
the first Reformation. 

Your frequent charges against the Catholic church, for ‘restricting 
the freedom of the press;’ — ‘claiming the government of kingdoms :’ 
— ‘establishing the inquisition:’— ‘burning heretics:’ — ‘encouraging 
extended and bloody massacres of the W 7 aldenses and Huguenots,’ 
and a hundred other sins which she never committed, certainly do not 
prove the ‘Protestant rule of faith,’ nor disprove that which Christ 
established. Childhood, full grown ignorance, grey-haired prejudice, 
and last, though not least, ladies of delicate nerves, may be frighten- 
ed by these tales of horror inconceivable ! But to these their effect 
will be exclusively confined. I dislike recrimination, but you will not 
take it amiss, if 1 remind you, inter nos, that the standard of Presby- 
terianism in the United States of America, and in the nineteenth cen- 
tury, makes it a sin against the second commandment of God, ‘to 
tolerate a false religion .’ It is true the General Assembly have 
not as yet told us, what religions are to be regarded as ‘false.’ But I 
cannot well understand how the Presbyterian conscience can be at 
peace with itself, or ‘the Great Head of the church,’ as long as it is 
burthened with this sin of toleration. 

In my last letter, in order to exhibit the delusion of the Protestant 
rule of faith, I introduced an uneducated ‘collier,’ to whose ex- 
perience an judgment I refer the reader. You pass by the argu- 
ment contained in the paragraph, and seem to be shocked at the pro- 
fanity of the poor man’s language. But, Rev. Sir, these are times 
when men’s minds must be braced tip, so as not to be shocked at any 


78 


CONTROVERSY. 


consequence flowing from the common fountain of Protestant error 
inconsistency and extravaganza : I mean, the pretended competency 
of private opinion to interpret the religion of Jesus Christ from the , 
voiceless pages of the Bible. I defy any man, reasoning from the 
same premises, to arrive at a conclusion different from that of the 
‘collier. 5 You have not condescended to show us how it is even pos - 
sible to escape it. You represent me as calling the Bible a fallible 
guide , because, as you say, ‘men may and will wrest it. 5 No, Sir; but 
I am arguing against the fallible and fallicious principle of private in- 
terpretation, by which the Bible is degraded into a book of contradic- 
tions, and made to decide for and against even the most sacred points 
of doctrine — Baptism, the Lord’s supper, the order of Bishops, the 
existence of hell, the Divinity of Christ, and the Trinity of persons 
in the Godhead ! All this was illustrated in the case of the collier. 
Now, although you admit that ‘men may and will wrest it,' I do not 
see why one denomination of Protestants may not be as sincere in its 
opinions about the meaning of the Bible as another. And as ‘the Pro- 
testant rule of faith 5 is incapable of producing anything but opin- 
ions , I do not see, by what right you are warranted in saying that 
those, who differ from you ( wrest the Scriptures — Albeit, the ques- 
tion, after three hundred years, remains still to be settled ; but one 
thing is certain, that Jesus Chrst never revealed an opinion — in the 
Bible, or out of it. 

I have no further explanation to give respecting the blessing of 
‘beasts 5 in Rome or elsewhere — except that the inhabitants of the 
‘seven hills, 5 would, I suppose, be very much hurt, if they were to find 
out that you disapprove of it. But I would simply ask you to grati- 
fy the public with the document, in which you find that the Roman 
Pontiff* has pronounced ‘anathemas against living men who circulate 
the Bible. 5 

You have a brief, comprehensive reply to the departure from the 
Protestant Rule, which I pointed out in the ‘Confession of Faith, 5 on 
on the subject of Infant Baptism, the Sabbath, and the Ordination of 
Ministers. ‘You find satisfactory proof for all three in the word of 
God: 5 but you have prudently declined furnishing the public with a 
sight of it — not even a reference ! This is a summary mode of con- 
ducting a controversy. 

If I have succeeded in dissipating the vapors, which you have at- 
tempted to raise between the mind of the reader and the testimony of 
the Holy Scriptures , the ‘ fathers , 5 and permit me to use the cxpres- 
ion,of common sense, in support of the ‘Catholic rule of faith 5 in my 
last letter, then your task of refutation is still unaccomplished. I do 
not accuse you of any intention to mystify the question; but really if 
there are any arguments in your whole letter against the Catholic rule 
of faith, as I laid it down and vindicated it, they are so loosely joint- 
ed, that 1 could hardly compress them into tangible form and consis- 
tency. They are like spectres, which make a transient impression on 
the organ of vision, but elude the grasp, that would attempt to seize 
or hold, them responsible. Perhaps others may see them differently. 
But if any man will assert, that you have proved the Protestant rule 
of faith, or disapproved the arguments adduced by me, in support of 


CONTROVERSY. 


79 


the Catholic principle, I have only to say, that I do not envy the grade 
of his intellect, nor his powers of logical discrimination. 

I only regret, that you did not grapple closely with the question 
— that you do not plant the fulcrum of your reasoning on some solid 
basis; that you do not say with that manly boldness, which the con- 
sciousness of a good cause usually inspires — Sir, the Catholic rule 
of faith is false: — which I prove thus, It is manifest, that when Christ 
said; ‘Go ye, teach all nations, and behold I am with you all days , 
even to the consummation of the world;’ his meaning was, that the 
apostles should die ‘without successors’ in the ministry of teaching — 
that all days, and forever, signify till the ‘death of St. John’ — that 
when the first creed says, ‘I believe in the Holy Catholic Church,’ 
the true meaning is, 1 believe in every man’s private interpretation 
of the Bible, but chiefly in my own .’ Having thus proved the 
main position, that Christ did not establish the Catliolic ride of faith , 
you could easily dispose of the minor difficulties. The moral phe- 
nomenon, by which it happens, that all Catholics in all ages and in 
all nations believe the same identical doctrines, is produced mani- 
festly, not by the operation of their rule of faith, but by the magic of 
priestcraft, the terrors of the inquisition, and the moderate tariff on 
the commission of sin. ‘Seven shillings and sixpence for killing a 
father or mother !’ Only think of it!! Is it any wonder that the 
hundreds of millions of souls that belong, or have belonged to that 
church, should be united as one family , in the belief of the same 
tenets of relision ? — as for the little differences of opinions, which 
grow up under the fostering protection of the ‘Protestant rule of faith,’ 
touching the Divinity of the Messiah , Sfc. you might glorify them, by 
calling them beautiful evidences of Protestant freedom, as contrast- 
ed with Catholic subjugation to the ‘yoke of faith,’ which renders 
them so bigoted, that they all think alike. — ‘The liberty of the Gos- 
pel’ would be a good name. 

But I suppose you will take your own way, and in truth I do not 
claim any right of either dictation or direction in the matter. If you 
have nothing further to say against the arguments of my last letter, 
we may return to the unfinished condition in which we left the Pro- 
testant rule of faith; but this also shall be at your option, for I wish 
to be accommodating, whilst I remain, very respectfully, — Yours, &c. 

Jno. Hughes. 


CONTRG VERS Y No. VIII. 


RULE OF FAITH. 

JVe w - York , 2 1 st, March, 1 83 3 . 

To the Rev. John Hughes* 

Rev. Sir , — Your letter of March 15th, running far into the seventh 
column, reached me on the 18th inst. It is hard work, you find, to 
meet and parry stubborn facts, especially when your own authors and 
formularies are turned against you. No wonder your defence strug- 
gles in the greatness of the way, 

“And like a wounded snake drag3 its slow length along.” 

I regret to see you grow less courteous, as well as more feeble and 
prolix; and it would seem that these qualities keep pace with each 
other, in the progress of the discussion. 

But let us address ourselves to the question, viz: The claim you 
set up of infallible teachers as the successors of the apostles. In my 
last letter, (and 1 think with some clearness,) I proved, 

I. That the apostles had in certain respects no successors. Under 
this proposition it was shown, ^see letter No. 6.) 1st. That no man 
could be an apostle who had not seen the Lord. 2d. That an apostle 
must have received his commission directly from Christ. 3d. Every 
apostle was endowed with the power to work miracles, with inspira- 
tion, (from which resulted infallibility) in speaking and writing; also 
with the gift of tongues, so as to speak, untaught by men, various 
languages; and even the power to enable others to work miracles, and 
the knowledge to discern spirits. 4th. The apostles were not to be 
stationary; but with plenary power, went from nation to nation, to set 
up the kingdom of the Lord. From these facts, supported by many 
clear Scripture proofs, it was shown that in these extraordinary re- 
spects, they had no successors; that Christ intended them to have none; 
and that it was impossible they should have any, from the verymature 
of the case. Wherefore, as your claim to infallibility rests on the no- 
tion of succession, it falls to the ground, and with it, your rule of faith. 

Again, 11. I showed that if the Apostles had successors, then they 
must ail have had successors; and hence, if there be any Pope, there 
must be twelve Popes; and if any church as infallibility upon Apos- 
tolical succession, many must have it. 

HI. If their successors had any of these miraculous powers, they 
must have had all of them; for all are as necessary as one. The at- 
tempts in your church to work miracles, are an acknowledgment of 
this principle; while the failure proves that the power is wanting. To 
the last two arguments, in particular, l anxiously wait your reply. As 
yet l have not seen any thing like it. 

Excuse me, when I say, there is want of candour in your state- 
ment of this argument. You represent me as holding, ‘that the 
Apostles had no successors.’ This, like your quotation from Tertul- 
lian, is just one half- I said, ‘then the conclusion is irresistible, 


CONTROVERSY. 


81 

that the Apostles had no successors endued with extraordinary pow- 
ers of any kind. But we hold to a commission still standing and 
binding, which reaches to the end of time!’ (See my last letter. No. 
6, pages 61, 62.) I still say that the Apostles had no infallible suc- 
cessors — none as you claim — nor have you met one single point of 
my whole argument on this subject. Your system, among other ab- 
surdies, leads to this, that there is a succession of foundations. For 
we are told (Ephes. ii. 20.) that the church ‘is built upon the founda- 
tion of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the 
chief corner stone,’ and thus ‘the whole building is fitly framed to- 
gether:’ and ‘other foundation can no more lay, than that is laid, 
which is Jesus Christ.’ (1 Cor. iii. 11.) Here is the basis of truth; 
the only foundation is inspired authority. To this, the faith of every 
Christian must look. No authority or succession can come in be- 
tween God’s people and the Apostles, as the Pope attempts to do. 
The Apostles themselves still live in this foundation, that is, in their 
infallible writings; and they have no successors in an office, whose, 
force never has ceased, and whose authority will never expire. It is 
therefore piling foundation on foundation, or defending the absurdity 
of a succession of foundations, when you claim to inherit their infal- 
libility. But you ask, ‘pray did the commission to teach all nations, 
during all days, extend only to those who had seen the Lord? Did it 
also expire with the last Apostle? If it was discharged in the se- 
cond generation, were not those by whom it was discharged, in so 
much, the regular successors of the Apostles?’ I answer,’ certainly, 
the commission to ‘teach all nations,’ and ‘to baptize them in the 
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,’ runs to the last 
day and the last man; and the promise of the Divine Redeemer, ‘lo! 
I am with you always, even unto the end of the world’ — is faithful 
and unfailing, and is perpetually realized in the experience of every 
true minister of the Gospel. And here is the very point of defect 
in your system. You confound the standing ministry with the apos- 
tolical office. The Apostles were invested with an extraordinary of- 
fice, in which they were to have no successors. This I have clearly 
proved. They also transmitted an office, which is standing and min- 
isterial. Of such were the Elders of Ephesus, (Acts xx. 17 and 28) 
to whom the apostle Paul said, ‘Take heed therefore unto yoursel ves, 
and unto the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you over- 
seers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his 
own blood.’ To this also allusion is made, in 2 Tim. ii. 2. ‘And the 
things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same 
commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.’ 
Here three links in the chain of this standing ministry are distinctly 
recognized. The office is ministerial and pastoral, not apostolical; 
and the work is to publish the Gospel — salvation, and to feed the 
flock of Christ. But you profess to find an insuperable difficulty in 
the want of infallibility in these teachers; and your grand corrective 
is, that as successors of the apostles, you secure this intallibility. — • 
Now let us look at this point. On your plan, every preacher or 
teacher must be infallible. When Mr. Hughes, for example, ad- 


82 


CONTROVERSY. 


dresses his flock, either he is infallible, or else he may err; for, if 
he be not infallible, when he interprets Scripture, why may he not 
err? Does he refer you to Rome and the Pope? But ‘it is not a 
doctrine’ he tells us ‘of the church, that the Pope is infallible.’ — 
Does he refer you to the Pope and Council? They have not met 
for 270 years! And prior to that, for many centuries, their decrees, 
&c. fill volumes. Then Mr. Hughes in Philadelphia, and every 
priest in the whole world, is to interpret the Bible by these volumi- 
nous written decrees. Either then Mr. Hughes is infallible, (which 
he disclaims,) or else he fallibly interprets these infallible interpreta- 
tions of the Bible! Now I ask any honest man to judge, if this be 
any improvement to the system? May not a Protestant minister as 
well go the written Bible, where the Apostles speak infallibly to 
us, and directly expound the inspired word to the people, as Mr. 
Hughes and all other Roman Catholic priests to the Bible through 
volumes of decrees, bulls, &c. and then expound on private inter- 
pretation this same Bible at last? If the Protestant minister be fal- 
lible, so is Mr. Hughes, and every Roman Catholic priest; but the 
Protestants goes directly to the Bible, whereas Mr. Hughes wades to 
it through all the decrees of his councils, fallible as he is; and he 
has first to interpret these decrees, and then to interpret the Bible, by 
them! I proceed to remark that you virtually yield the point in 
discussion, by the following admissions: ‘According to the Catholic 
rule of faith, the doctrines of Christianity are not abstract specula* 
tions, they are positive truths, facts, unchanged, and unchangeable, 
as they came from the lips of Jesus Christ and his inspired Apostles. 
But, being public truths or facts, they were taught by the pastors of 
the church, and believed by the people in all countries, and in every 
century since the establishment of the church. Consequently, lean 
verify them with the same certainty, which I have that such an event 
as the battle of Waterloo, the decapitation of Charles I., or the Coun- 
cil of Nice, took place in the world. In neither case is a divine or 
personal infallibility necessary. When I say, that 2 and 4 make 6; 
that Charles X. was expelled from France; and that Luther had a mis- 
understanding with Leo X.:and that John Huss was burned to death 
at Constance, and Michael Servetus at Geneva; I assert propositions 
which are infallibly true.’ (See Mr. Hughes’ letter. No. 5.) And 
again — ‘All of which, (that is, the doctrines of the Roman Catho- 
lic church) are facts, with which the principles of private interpre- 
tation have as little to do, as it has with ascertaining whether or not 
the city of Philadelphia was founded by William Penn,’ (see Mr. 
Hughes’ letter, No. 7.) If then all your doctrines are positive 
truths, and public facts, as certain as the burning of John Huss, 
or the occurrence of the Reformation, why is it said that the Scrip- 
ture is an obscure book, in which, without an infallible guide every 
man must err? And if some of the statements in the Bible are facts, 
are not all so? Are those doctrines which serve your purpose clear 
truths and stubborn facts; and all the rest dark hieroglyphics, and 
floating phantoms ? It is not an historical fact that Christ appointed 
a ministry and promised to sustain it? It is not also an historical fact 
that Christ died for sinners; that he taught the doctrine of regenera- 


CONTROVERSY. 


S3 


tion; the doctrine of man’s depravity; the doctrine of the final de- 
struction of the wicked; the doctrine that Christ is the only head of 
the Church; the doctrine that all sin is mortal if not repented of ;the 
doctrine that the Church of Rome should be broken offi if it became 
corrupt; (Epistle to the Romans, chap. ii. 18 — 25 verses.) the doctrine, 
that it is a great sin to make and worship images; the doctrine, that none 
but God can pardon sin; the doctrine, that the cup as well as the 
bread is to be used in the sacrament of the Supper; the doctrine, that 
the Bible is a sufficient rule of faith; the doctrine, that force is never 
to be applied to compel conformity ? I say are not all these public 
truths, and positive tacts ? And if so, do we need an infallible guide 
to find them out, or understand them? If, as you say, ‘a divine or 
personal infallibility is not necessary to verify them,’ any more than 
to verify ‘the facts that 2 and 4 make 6;’ and if, like it, they are ‘pro- 
positions which are infallibly true,’ why may we not give the Bible to 
the people as a sufficient rule of faith? And why should I go to 
Rome to catch light from the sickly taper of the Pope ? And why 
should he sit in empty state crying out ‘the temple of the Lord — the 
temple of the Lord are we,’ and trim this dying taper, when the Sun 
of Righteousness has arisen upon the earth? Surely this system 
‘decayeth and waxeth old, and is ready to vanish away.’ 

I have a single thought to add, to this part of the discussion. It is 
suggested by the following extract from the Catholic Herald of Feb. 
28th, on ‘private interpretation of the Scripture.’ ‘We will recom- 
mend them (the people) to search the Scriptures, for they bear testi- 
mony of Christ and his church. But when they have once come to the 
knowledge of Christ and his church, then they need inquire no fur- 
ther, with a view of making new discoveries in matters of faith, but 
should become like little children, and receive the word of truth in the 
humble simplicity of faith from those whom Christ commissioned to 
teach, and whom he commanded us to hear and obey. The words 
‘search the Scripture,’ ‘seek and ye shall find,’ do not apply to be- 
lieving Christians ? I pass by the extraordinary position that Chris- 
tians need not search the Scripture. It speaks for itself. But the 
writer concedes that the Scripture ought to be searched by men until 
they find out Christ and the true church. ‘Here they need inquire no 
more.’ But I would ask, how are we guided in our search until then ? 
By what aid do we find out the true church ? The true church being 
unknown, is there any help to man but private interpretation ? So 
then every man must at least, if he joins any church, if he chooses 
any religion, do it by private interpretation. In a former number I 
presented this difficulty to you; you have not met it. Let me remind 
you of it in repeating the quotation from the Rev. Mr. M'Guire, Am- 
icable Discussion, page 1 34. He owns, that ‘the Catholic has only 
to exercise his private judgment upon the Scripture proofs of the au- 
thority of the church; that once established, the Catholic is enabled 
to make an act of faith upon divine authority.’ Others call it ‘pru- 
dential motives,’ ‘strong probability,’ &c. Now to any impartial mind, 

I think this is a total surrender of your rule of faith. But I wish you 
explicitly to avow or disavow this position, and to explain to us this 
principle. In my next letter, if my life is spared, I design to enlarge 
12 


84 


CtfKTBOVBRSY. 


upon the Bible as the rule of faith, and to meet your remaining ob- 
jections.’ I had wished to do this in the present number, but 
must pass, lastly, to mention some thing of a miscellaneous char- 
acter. 

The first I notice, is your entire silence about the quotation from 
Tertullian, in which I convicted you, (excuse the word, for you force 
it upom me,) of garbling the passage, and leaving out one half, and 
making the other half prove the very reverse of what the father meant. 
Why are you silent ? You are silent also about Bellarmine and ‘fere 
de fide.’ In your previous letter you said, ‘I defy you to quote ten 
lines before, and then lines after it, without convicting yourself of 
what is not becoming a minister of the Gospel.’— The reader will re- 
collect that in my letter, (No. 4.) I had quoted a few words from 
Bellarmine, to illustrate otner proofs, that your church claims and uses 
the right to make new articles of faith. Now let us for a moment re- 
turn to this mooted question, especially as you informed me in Phila- 
delphia that Bellarmine was a standard author in your church. Three 
lines above the quotation, a new chapter begins; so that seven of the 
first ten lines you call for, are on another subject; yet I will give them, 
if you wish it. It would seem then, that you had not the book, and 
spoke at random, not knowing what was there, and what not there.— 
Here follow ten lines below, and three above the quotation — from the 
beginning of the chapter. 


Bellarmine, chap. 17. lib. 2. 

Tertiapropositio: summits pontifex , 
aimpliciter, et absolute est supra eccle m 
siam universrm, et supra concilium 
generate, ita ut nullum in terris supra se 
judicium , agnoscat. Hae etiam est 
fere de tide, et probatur primo et 
duabus praecedentibus : nam si Papa 
est caput ecclesiae universae, etiam si- 
mul congregate, et ecclesia universa 
simul congregata non habetullam pro- 
testatem ratione suae totaltatis . sequi- 
tur Papam supra concilium esse, et su* 
pra eccleslam, non conira. 

Secundo probatur ratitione, in serip- 
turis fundata: nam omnia nomina, quae 
in scripturis tribuuntur Christo, unde 
constat eum esse supra ecclesiam, ea- 
dem omnia tribuuntur Ponlifici ac 
primum, Christus est pater-familias in 
domo sua, quae est ecclesia. Pontifex, 
in eadem, est summus oeconomus, id 
est, pater-familias loco Christi. — Luc. 
xii. 42. 


Prop. Third. The supreme Pontiff 
is simply and absolutely above the 
church universal, and above a general 
council, so that he acknowledges no 
jurisdiction on earth above himself. — 
This is also ale but ax article or 
faith, and is proved (1) from the two 
preceding: for if the Pope is the head 
of the church universal, even when 
met in assembly together, and if the 
church universal when thus assembled, 
has no power, on the ground (simply) 
of its totality; it follows that the Pope 
is above a council, and above the 
church and not contrary (to either.) 

(2) It js proved by an argument 
founded in the Scriptures: for all the 
names, which in the Scriptures are ap- 
plied to Christ, proving him to be 
above the church, are in like manner 
applied to the Pontiff as first, Christ is 
Pater-familias — head of the family in 
his own house, which is the church. 
The Pontiff is high Stewart in the 
same, this is, he is Paterfamilias in 
the place of Christ. — Luke xii. 42. 


I here pass by his profaneness in saying, that all Christ’s titles are 
applied in the Bible to the Pope ; and also his weakness in quoting 
Luke xii. 42, as proof, when in Luke xii. 46 — 48. (three verses be- 
low,) his whole system is exploded. 

But observe, (1.) the author expressly declares the opinion, that 


CONTRO Y BUS Y . 


85 


the Pope is above the general council, and above the universal church. 
(2.) He affirms that this opinion is almost an article of faith. (3.) In 
the same chapter, and on the same subject, he says, ‘Quod vero conci- 
lium hoc rem istam non definierit, proprie, utdecretum fide Catholica 
tenendum, dubium est, et ideo non sunt proprie heretici, qui contra- 
rium sentiunt, sed a temeritate magna excusari non possunt.’ But 
whereas the council did not strictly define this matter, as a decree to 
be held by the Catholic faith, it is subject to doubt, and therefore they 
are not properly heretics, who maintain a contrary opinion, yet they 
cannot be freed from the charge of great temerity. 

Is it not plain then, that an opinion may be almost an article of 
faith; or doubtful, (in your unchangeable, infallible church,) and that 
it may grow into an article; — and be so near an article that it be 
doubtful whether it be one or not; and be like an article, that he who 
rejects it is almost a heretic. And now, (begging you to be silent about 
this in your next letter,) I ask you, if you had not Bellarminein your 
possession, how could you deny so positively that the author bore such 
a testimony; and how could you venture to level such a charge at me 
while ignorant of what he said ? But if you had his work before you, 
then you must not complain, if retorting with proof your groundless 
charge, I say, ‘You are convicted of what is not becoming a minister 
of the Gospel.’ If you had the work before you, how can these things 
be explained ? I leave you to solve the problem, and shun, if you 
can, so peculiar a dilemma. 

I would next recall you for a moment to the injured words statuere 
articulos fidei. I supposed myself addressing one sufficiently a scho- 
lar to know or to search out the real meaning of these words. I as- 
sure you the omission of the word ‘new’ had no design in it. You 
know as well as I do, that ‘to constitute new articles,’ and ‘to consti- 
tute articles,’ convey essentially the same idea. Dr. Johnson defines 
‘constitute’ to give formal existence, to make any thing what it is, to 
erect, &c. And this is what I meant to say, that the Pope condemn- 
ed Luther for denying, ‘that the Pepe or Council had a right to con- 
stitute,’ (to give formal existence to, or erect) articles, or make new 
articles of faith. But it is in vain, by shallow and evasive criticism, 
to attempt to shun the force of the word ‘statuere.’ Bailey defines 
it, ‘to set up; to raise; erect, appoint, ordain, decree.’ The word, I am 
Well aware, has various shades of meaning; but an honest critic, not 
to say a learned one, must see at a glance, when you translate it, ‘de- 
fine articles of faith,’ or ‘determine questions,’ that it is a mere eva- 
sion of the force of the phrase. Thus Cicero says, ‘Statui columel- 
lam,’ I have erected, (defined, you say) a little pillar. Yirgil, ‘Ipse 
Pater statuit quid luna moneret.’ The eternal Father hat decreed the 
courses of the moon. Horace, ‘Qui statuit te, meo agro.’ Who plant- 
ed thee (a tree, you would say defined) in my soil ? 

You next bring to view, one of a multitude of my ‘objections,’ (from 
letter 4) under the head of ‘unwarrantable liberties, taken by the 
church of Rome, with the word of God.’ In exposing the utter fal- 
libility of your rule, I showed your additions to the word of God; 
you pass them by; I showed a pious fraud oi your church; you raws 


86 


CONTROVERSY. 


it by: 1 referred to the twelve new articles of faith added by the 
Council of Trent; you pass them by: I referred to the astonishing cor- 
ruptions and perversions of your translations of the Bible; you pass 
them by: but you faintly rally, with ‘a word of contradiction,’ as to 
the charge that you mutilate the second commandment. When I 
speak of the second commandment, I mean, that which forbids images 
and idolatry — and not the third, which your church makes the second. 
As you are silent about the various versions in which 1 stated that the 
second commandment was clipped or omitted, shall we infer that you 
admit it? And again as to ‘the Do way Catechism,’ and ‘the Poor 
Man’s Catechism,’ what have you to say in defence of the mistrans- 
lation of .the passage, ‘thou shalt not bow down thyself to them,’ into 
this, ‘thou shalt not adore or worship them ?’ And now I ask, will 
you deny that the ‘catechismusad Parochos’ runs thus: ‘Primum prre- 
ceptuin Decalogi, &c. Non habebis Deos alienos coram me,’ (Here 
ends the first commandment.) 2d. Non facies tici sculptibile, &c. &c. 
and these four words are all that are quoted ? The translations of 
the catechism into various languages carry out the same plan, in sub- 
stance. The Montpelier catechism adds a few more words. The 
Irish, drops the whole. ‘The Christian doctrine,’ by the Rev. Father 
James Ledesma, published by permission of the ‘superiors,’ wholly 
omits the second, and for the fourth commandment, has this ‘Remem- 
ber to sanctify the Holy days.’ . Please then excuse me from ‘making 
corrections,’ — until your church corrects her treatment of the word 
and law of God. 

Such is your Diarrhoea verborum, that I fear I shall weary the in- 
dulgent reader in the circuit of reply; but as we are upon proofs 
which you challenge, it must be done. Then as to Bellarmine, I still 
insist that he maks the Pope, living, infallible law; and you, not I, 
pervert this reasoning. He argues that the Pope cannot err in decretis 
fidei, in decrees as to faith, neque in preeceptis murum, nor in moral 
precepts. His reasoning is this: The church is bound to submit to 
the Pope because he cannot err; and while he owns that in the judg- 
ment of the church virtue is good, and vice evil, yet whatever the 
Pope enjoins is law; and the subversion of moral principle would not 
be such an evil as the subversion of his infallibility. In other words, 
the Pope must be followed, right or w r rong. But I would ask 
you in your next letter to explain what Pope Nicholas says to the 
Kmperor Michael, (quoted in my last.) The Pope is a God, and there-, 
fore men cannot judge him. 

What will you say to the following? Immutat substantialem rei 
naturam, puta facicndo de illegitimo legitimum. Durand, 1,50. — 
He (the Pope) can change the very nature of a thing for example; 
he can make that lawful, which is unlawful. Habet plenitudiiiem 
potestatis, et supra jus est. Gibert,2. 205. He possesses plentitude 
of power, and is above law. He is then above law, can change law 
and transmute right into wrong, and wrong into right; is in a word, 
‘a God on earth,’ even ‘our Lord God, the Pope.’ It is indeed a 
desperate escape you make, from these profane authorities, to com- 
pare this deification of the Pope, 'with the amiable hyperbole of a 


CONTROVERSY. 


8 / 


grateful people, who " 6 ometime 9 in the fervour of their praise, may 
have said ‘the godlike Washington.’ Washington is called godlike; 

I will not defend it; the Pope is called God. Washington made no 
such pretensions; he bowed to the laws, which under God, his unpar- 
alleled courage and wisdom had done so much to establish. The 
Pope usurps the rights of the people, and the seat of the Saviour, and 
would sit enthroned on the riches of the commonwealth of Israel. In 
a word, your infallible church thus speaks of the Pope, and your in- 
fallible Pope loves to have it so. Never then join together again, 
names and pretensions so dissimilar, and so discordant. 

We come next to the subject of the valadity, or rather invalidity of 
oaths, in the Roman Church. By your own admission, then, ‘Ecclesi- 
astical utility makes it a right to violate an oath.’ ‘He that sweareth 
to his own hurt, and changeth not,’ i9 David’s good man. But here is 
the old Popish maxim, that the end justifies the means. The Inter- 
est of the church must be regarded, though a lawful oath lie in the 
way. You talk of the ‘factious minority’ of an infallible Council, 
and of the Council of Basle as ‘a spurious assembly.’ What will you 
say of the Council of the 4th Lateran decreeing, that the subjects of 
heretical sovereigns were freed from their allegiance ? What of the 
Council of Constance declaring in solemn sessions, that Emperors, 
&c. &c. are not bound to keep their promise of security made to he- 
retics, or to persons accused of heresy. Here observe that the here- 
tic maybe ever so innocent of any crime against the state — but his 
‘heresy, in doctrine is enough, (as the case of John IIuss,) to tear him 
from the civil power, to be tried by the Church, and then handed back, 
to be put to death by the same civil power. 

And now let me gratify you, in the call for the document, ‘in 
which the Pope anathematizes the living men who circulate the Bi- 
ble.’ In using the word ‘anathema,’ it may be that, from want 
of familiarity with the weapon, I may have not applied it in its strictly 
technical meaning; but if the spirit of the following sentences is not 
that of an anathema, I should scarcely know whither to go in search 
of such a spirit. ‘The Pope’s circular letter,’ May 3d, 1824. ‘It is 
no secret to you, venerable brethren, that a certain society, vulgarly 
called ‘the Bible Society,’ (audaciter vagari) is audaciously dispread- 
ing itself through the whole world. After despising the traditions of 
the Holy Fathers, and in opposition to the well known decree of the 
Council of Trent, (session the fourth, on the publication and use of 
the sacred books,) this society has collected all its forces, and directs 
every means to one object, to the translatiou, or rather to the perver- 
sion of the Bible into the vernacular languages of all nations! From 
this fact, there is strong ground of fear, lest, as in some instances al- 
ready known, so likewise in the rest, through a perverse interpretation, 
there be framed out of the Gospel of Christ, a Gospel of man, or, 
what is worse, a Gospel of the Devil.’ (St. Jerome, chap. 1. Epis. 
ad Galot.) 

Alexander, Emperor of Russia, having tried Bible Societies for a 
short time, found the spirit of liberty, and the power of light so 
great, that he must abolish them, or lose his crown. And he issued 


£5 


CONTROVERSY 


his royal ukase, putting them down in his empire. How expressive 
this coincidence ! 

In China preachers of the cross are not tolerated. The Jesuites 
found their way by intrigue into the empire; but they aimed at the 
throne more than the souls of the people; — and still farther threw 
back the hopes of the empire. The illustrious Dr. Morrison has trans- 
lated the entire Bible into that perplexing and interminable language. 
And they are a reading the people; and in this way alone can they be 
now enlightened. Yet every Bible Society, and translation, and do- 
nor, is cursed for this labour of love. How well for China, and for 
us, that while the Pope curses, the Saviour smiles upon the heavenly 
work of giving the Bible to every creature. 

Perhaps it may also ‘gratify’ you to see some more recent news 
from Rome. It is found in the Pope's Encyclical Letter, lately sent 
forth.' He tells his Bishops all over the world, ‘that now r is the hour 
and the power of darkness ; yes, the earth is in sorrow and perishes ; 
the chair of the blessed Peter in which we sit, where Jesus Christ has 
laid the foundation of this- church, is violently shaken, and the bonds 
of unity are weakened and broken every day.’ He calls it, ‘an ab- 
surd and dangerous maxim, or rather the raving of delirium, that it is 
proper to allow to every man liberty of conscience.’ He calls the li- 
berty of the press, ‘that fatal license of which we cannot entertain 
sufficient horror;’ — and brings against the license of unfettered print- 
ing, the Apostolical practice, of publicly burning evil books! — And 
such is the Head of the Universal Church — seated in his tottering 
chair, amidst the gathering ruins of his hierarchy; complaining of the 
freedom of the Press, and denouncing the spirit of the age ! In vain 
does he murnaer, and in vain denounce. The thunders of the Vati- 
can no longer cause kings to tremble, and nations to bow down at the 
haughtly Pontiff’s feet. Like aged Priam, in the sacking of Troy, he 
grasps a useless sword : 

‘Urbis ubicaptae casum, convulsaque vidit 
Limina tectorum, et medium in penetralibus hostem, 

Arma di usenior desueta trementibus sevo 

Circumdat nequidquam humeris, et inutile ferrum Cingitur. > 

It is wholly new to me that ‘The Presbyterian Church makes it a 
sin against the second commandment to tolerate a false religion.’ In 
your next letter please to mention where you find this passage. In 
the form of government, Book 1. Chap. 1. Sect 1, you will find as fol- 
lows: ‘they are unanimously of opinion, that God alone is Lord 
of conscience, and therefore they consider the right of private judg- 
ment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal and unalien- 
able.’ Confession of Faith, chap, xxiii. sec. 3. ‘Civil magistrates 
may not in the least interfere with matters of faith— -they should 
give no preference to any one denomination of Christians above the 
rest — and ecclesiastical persons should enjoy free, full, and unques- 
tioned liberty.’ 

In contrast with the above, let me point you to the following de- 
crees of the great Lateran council, held by Pope Innocent III. A. D. 
1215, at which were present, 2 Patriarchs, 70 Metropolitans, 400 
Bishops, and 812 abbots, priors, besides imperial ambassadors, &c. 


CONTROYER9T. 


89 


In tikis infallible general council, it was decreed as follows: (I have 
the original before me, but for want of space give the translation.) 

3d Chapter. ‘We communicate an anathematize every heresy 
extolling itself against this holy, orthodox. Catholic faith which we 
before expounded, condemning all heretics by what names soever 
called. And being condemned, let them be left to the secular power, 
or their bailiffs, to be punished by due animadversion. And let the 
secular powers be warned and induced, and if need be condemned 
by ecclesiastical censure, what offices soever they are in, that as they 
desire to be reputed and taken for believers, so they publicly take an 
oath for the defence of the faith, that they will study in good earnest 
to exterminate, to their utmost power, from the lands subject to their 
jurisdiction, all heretics denoted by the Church; so that every one, 
that is henceforth taken into any power, either spiritual or temporal, 
shall be bound to confirm this chapter by his oath.’ ‘But if the tem- 
poral lord, required and warned by the church, shall neglect to purge 
his territory of this heretical filth, let him by the Metropolitan and 
Comprovincial Bishops be tied by the bond of excommunication; and 
if he scorn to satisfy within a year, let that be signified to the Pope, 
that he may denounce his vassals thenceforth absolved from his fideli- 
ty, (or allegiance,) and may expose his country to be seized on by 
Catholics, who, exterminating the heretics, may possess it without any 
contradiction, and may keep it in the purity of faith, saving the right 
of the principal lord, so be it he himself put no obstacle hereto, nor 
oppose any impediment; the same law notwithstanding being kept 
about them that have no principal lords.’ ‘And the Catholics that 
taking the badge of the cross shall gird themselves for the extermin* 
ing of heretics, shall enjoy that indulgence, and be fortified with that 
holy privilege which is granted to them that go the help of the holy 
land.’ ‘And yet we decree to subject to excommunication the be- 
lievers and receivers, defenders and favourers of heretics, firmly or- 
daining, that when any such person is noted by excommunication, if 
he disdain to satisfy within a year, let him be ipso jure , made infa- 
mous.’ 

Finally — I find an accredited Roman Catholic writer, the follow- 
ing sentence, which goes to show, that no means are spared in order 
to bring these heretics to justice! ‘Admittuntur ad acdusaudum, at- 
que ad ferendum testimonium etiom infames;’ that is, even infamous 
persons, are to be admitted to accuse and bring testimony (against 
heretics.) 

With these facts submitted for your consideration, I for the present 
bid you farewell. John Breckinridge, 

(postscript.) 

I present through you to Bishop Kenrick the expression of my sin- 
cere regret that the mistake as to himself was ever made. A most 
respectable and responsible name was given me as authority; and it 
was not until I had repeated the inquiry, and been re -assured of the 
truth of the statement, that I asked you whether it were true or false. 
This gentleman still insists that such a warning was given on the day 
named, and in one of your churches in Philadelphia, by a Roman 
Catholic Priest. — Yours, &c. J. B. 





























- r 






























J 


>1 






























V 








- 



















• t 

•r': 


'-V« 



























1 * . 




CONTROVERSY No. IX. 


RULE OF FAITH. 

Philadelphia , March 26, 1833. 
To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 

Rev. Si?\ — .The precept of the Apostle, which forbids Christians to 
return ‘railing for railing,’ must be my apology for not noticing those 
parts of your last letter, which come under the head of personality. I 
engaged in this discussion, with a determination to use only the legi- 
timate evidence of religious truth — such as are furnished by reason, 
revelation, and history — and I am not disposed, under any provoca- 
tion, to alter my resolution. 

But there are a few points, on which you and I are notoriously at 
issue; and it is necessary that these points should be settled, before we 
proceed to graver matters. 

1. In your letter No. 4, you quoted three words from Bellarmine, 
to support your assertion, that with us opinions pass into doctrines. I 
said in answer to this, that Dr. Priestly attempts, in his history of 
early opinions, to disprove the Divinity of Christ, by similar asser- 
tions — and that you could not quote ten lines before, and ten lines 
after, the words ‘fere de fide,’ without convicting yourself of what is 
not becoming a minister of the Gospel. You nave endeavoured in 
your last letter, to extricate yourself from this position: — but to my 
mind you have only confirmed it. If the reader will take the pains 
to examine the words of the author, as you have quoted them, he will 
see the evidence. Bellarmine takes up the matter, on which he is 
writing, as an opinion; he treats it as an opinion; and he leaves it as 
an opinion. What then have you done by the quotation? You have 
proved that Bellarmine had been perverted, when his words ‘fere de 
fide’ were quoted, to show, that Catholic faith is, ‘like the new moon, 
crescent,’ and that the topic on which he was speaking, was ‘a proba- 
tioner for a seat in the creed.’ Now, I would ask you, is it becoming 
a minister of the Gospel to pervert an author ? — to assert that he said, 
what he never said? — or that he meant what he'never meant? This i3 
precisely what the quotation establishes against you, and even less 
than ‘ten lines’ completes the ‘conviction.’ 

It was Cardinal Richelieu, I believe, who said, that if he had the 
privilege of selecting three lines at his pleasure, from an author’s 
book, lie could have him hanged for treason. And we all know’, 
that if the infidel were allowed to select three words from the 
Psalms of David, as you had done from the writings of Bellarmine, 
he could make it appear, that ‘there is no God,’ and that the Royal 
Prophet was an Atheist. But in either case, ‘ten lines before, and 
ten lines after,’ would ‘convict’ the offender of what might be tolerat- 
ed in politics, or sceptism, but is, in my opinion, not becoming in the 
ministry of the Gospel. You beg me in your last letter ‘not to be si- 
• 13 


92 


CONTROVERT. 


lent about this matter,’ and I have only one word more to say upon It 
It is this: that 1 will meet you with a copy of Bellarmine on any day 
you please to appoint ; and submit the passage to any sworn interpre- 
ter of languages, and let him decide its meaning. If he says that Bel- 
larmine’s meaning was not perverted, in your first use of the words 
‘fere de fide,’ I hereby pledge myself to apologise publicly. But if 
the decision be against you, then you will be candid enough to ackow- 
ledge the perversion, and leave the public to judge of the cause which 
required it. The decision, however, shall be in writing, with the in- 
terpreter’s signature, and given to the public. 

You ask me, ‘if I had not Bellarmine in my possession, how could 
I deny so positively, that the-author bore such a testimony; and how 
could I venture to level such a charge at you, while ignorant of what 
he said?’ Answer. Because I was not ignorant ‘of what he said.’ — • 
2. Because the ‘doctrines of the Catholic Church are fixed stars in 
the firmament of belief,’ and the transmutation of an opinion into a 
doctrine, (for proof of which you referred to Bellarmine,) would be 
the raising of a ‘new light,’ a species of religious reformation which 
Protestants have taken into their own hands, and for which Catholics 
have neither the talent, inclination, nor authority. So much, then, for 
this first point on which we are at issue. 

2. As to Luther’s propositions — I showed that you had interpolated 
it, by inserting a word (‘new,’) which is not in the original. That sub- 
sequently, when you gave the original, you left the word ‘new’ out of 
the translation; but supplied the place of it by an assertion which was 
unfounded in truth — viz: that your second version ‘was word for word 
what you had said before.’ In your last letter, you assure us that the 
omission of the word ‘new,’ (in the second version,) had no design in 
it. That is, you omit the interpolation, and yet take pains to assure 
our readers, that for this act of literary honesty, they are indebted to 
chance, and not to intention, since ‘the omission had no design in it r’ 
But then you tell us that, ‘statuere arborem,’ means, according to Ho- 
race, ‘to plant a tree.’ Agreed. And that ‘statuere columellam,’ ac- 
cording to Cicero, means, ‘to erect a little pillar.’ Agreed, again. — 
But what follows ? Will you say that therefore in Luther’s propo- 
sition, ‘statuere articulos fidei,’ means ‘to make new articles of faith?’ 
And yet, on this pivot of new logic, turns the only defence, you have 
been able to set up against all the arguments of my last letter, touch- 
ing the charges involved in the point at issue. It is not a tenet of 
Catholic belief, that either the Church or the Pope, or both together, 
have the power to create, or reject doctrine: to make, or to destroy 
one single article of faith. Protestants alone, who are responsible to 
no rule of faith, except to their individual private opinion of the mean- 
ing of Scripture, may plant and pluck up doctrines at their pleasure. 
Again, therefore, I am constrained to say that your charge against the 
Catholic church, of ‘claiming the right to make new articles of faith,’ 
is painfully untrue. 

3. You had said that the ‘Catechism of the Council of Trent, gives 
only four words of the second commandment, and closes with an ex- 
press et ccetera.’ This is ‘untrue.’ And can you imagine, that the 
moral sens* of the community, Protestant * as well as Catholic, 


CONTROVERSY. 


9S 

does not hunger for an explanation of the motives which could in- 
duce a ‘minister of the Gospel,’ thus to bear false witness against his 
neighbour. 

4. You had said, that in the Catholic church there are no less than 
three systems of doctrine, on the ‘Pope’s supremacy.’ Now every 
Catholic in the whole world might be called as a witness, to prove that 
this assertion is ‘untrue.’ On every article of faith, the Catholics of 
the present, and of all past ages, are as united in belief, as if they all 
dwelt under the same roof. Is it not, therefore, humiliating to sin- 
cere Protestants to discover, that their ministers and their books are 
obliged to use such means, and to confound all distinction between 
doctrine, discipline, opinions, and local customs, in order to prove dis- 
union of belief among the Catholics ? 

5. You have said, that it is a principle of Catholics, ‘that if the Pope 
were to command vice, and prohibit virtue, he is to be obeyed.’ For 
this assertion you referred to Bellarmine. In reply, I quoted the 
passage of Bellarmine, in my last letter, which shows that he stated 
it, as the impious and absurd consequence, which would flow from the 
opinion he was then refuting. You did not attempt to meet the quo- 
tation with any thing stronger than assertion. ‘I still insist,’ you say, 
‘that he (Bellarmine) maks the Pope living infallible law; and you, not 
I, prevent his reasoning.’ Bellarmine maintained, as a matter of opin- 
ion, that the Pope, in his official character is infallible. Bossuet, as a 
matter of opinion, maintained the contrary; both were Catholics, and 
believed as a matter of faith, the Pope’s supremacy, and the infalli- 
bility of the church. And here is the maxim of St. Augustine, exem- 
plified ‘in matters of faith, unity; in matters not of faith, liberty.’ But 
1 insist upon it, that Bellarmine, so far from saying, that ‘the Pope 
can make virtue vice, and vice virtue,’ professes to prove the errone- 
ousness of the opinion, which he was then refuting, by showing that 
this would be the impious consequence of its adoption. Thus then 
we both ‘insist.’ Who shall decide between us ? I say, any sworn 
interpreter of languages, and (stipulating always, that thedicision be 
published, with his signature and agreement) I challenge you to the 
alternative* How then can you ‘bear false witness against your 
neighbour,’ by saying that Bellarmine taught, and Catholics be- 
lieved, what Bellarmine never taught, and what Catholics do not 
believe ? 

6. You had stated, that according to the 16th canon of the 3d Coun- 
cil of Lateran, ‘an oath contrary to ecclesiastical utility, i3 perjury, 
not an oath.’ I answered that this had reference to unlawful oaths, 
which were sometimes pleaded by factious minorities, or individuals, 
to justify their rebellion against the choice of the majority, in certain 
cases of ecclesiastical elections. To these cases exclusively, was the 
decision of the Council limited. Yet, my Rev. opponent spreads it 
out into a general proposition of Catholic doctrine. Again, therefore, 
I challenge you to abide the decision of any sworn interpreter. Here, 
then, are six different heads, on each of which I am constrained to say 
with regret, that you have asserted what is ‘untrue.’ It is useless there- 
fore for you to calculate on the verdict of our reader* in general, who 


94 


CONTROVERSY. 


are unacquainted, as you know, with the language and the books, to 
which you have referred, with such bold but deceitful confidence. 
You will please consequently to clear up, as I give you an opportuni- 
ty of doing, these six topics, before you expect me to pay any atten- 
tion to your silly references. Of these you have already made too 
many, for the honour of your frame, and the sanctity of your cause, 
as I shall have occasion to show the public, before the controversy 
shall have terminated. 

Judging by what my own feelings should be, I fear that these re- 
marks are calculated to give you pain; but remember that you have 
left me no alternative; — except to bring the matter fairly to issue, or 
bow in acquiescence to charges, which are utterly ‘untrue. 5 My 
own principle is, never to assert, in argument, except what I am 
convinced is true. And as I admit the posibility of mistake, so, 
in such a case, do I hold myself ready to admit opposite evi- 
dence, and correet cheerfully any statement in which I may happen 
to have erred. A charge of this kind is brought against me in your 
last letter. ‘It is wholly new to me, 5 you say, ‘that the Presbyte- 
rian church makes it a sin against the second commandment, to ‘ tole- 
rate a false religion. 5 At this, Rev. Sir, I am ‘wholly 5 surprised. — 
Being, like myself, something of a ‘high churchman, 5 1 did not sup- 
pose that any thing contained in the ‘Confession of Faith 5 would be 
‘new 5 to you. 

The ‘tolerating of a false religion 5 is laid down as a sin against the 
second commandment in ‘Larger Catechism, 5 page 268, of the edition 
published by Towar & Hogan, in 1829. Perhaps it is also new to 
you — that in order to show how great a sin it is, reference is made, in 
the same page, to certain texts of Scripture, in one of which, death 
is specified as the penalty of teaching a false religion! I shall here 
quote the text, ‘and it shall come to pass that if any one shall yet pro- 
phesy 5 (meaning falsely) ‘then his father and his mother that begat 
him, shall say unto him, thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in 
the name of the Lord. 5 Thus itseems that, according to the Confes- 
sion of Faith, and to the Scriptures, Presbyterians look upon it, as an 
orthodox sin, to ‘tolerate a false religion. 5 The constitution of our 
country, however, has decided otherwise. 

This same Confession of Faith teaches that even good works, 
done by ‘unregenerate men 5 are sinful. (Chap. xvi. page 100,) and 
.(chap. xv. page 92) ifc tells us, ‘there is no sin so small, but it 
deserves damnation 5 — from whence it would follow, that if an 
‘unregenerate man 5 give a dollar to a poor widow, to keep her from 
perishing in the winter, he commits a sin, and deserves to be damn- 
ed for it! True, the text adds, that if he does not do it, he 
commits a ‘greater sin; 5 by which it appears, that he is to be damned 
for doing it, and damned for leaving it undone ! And yet there is 
an abundant profanation of sacred texts, to prove all this, on the same 
page ! You refer me to chapter xxiii. for the following quotation, in 
your last. ‘Civil magistrates may notin the least, interfere with iriat- 
tess of faith, they should give no preference to any denomination of 
Christians, above the rest — and ecclesiastical persons should enjoy 
free, full and unquestioned liberty. 5 I have not found any such words. 


CONTROVERSY. 


95 


in the reference. But in the very same chapter and section, I find the 
following : ‘He (the civil magistrate) hath authority, and it is his duty, 
to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that 
the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and he- 
resies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and disci- 
pline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly set- 
tled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, 
he hath power to call Synods, to be present at them, and to provide 
that whatsoever is transacted in them, be according to the mind of 
God. 5 Westminster Confession, chap, xxiii. sec. 3. p. 141. Here the 
‘mind of God 5 is made the rule of just proceeding, and the civil ma- 
gistrate, is supposed to be on such terms of familiarity and confidence 
with the Almighty, that he knows what is the ‘mind of God, 5 and is 
bound to see that matters shall be regulated accordingly. Still, there 
is a powerful array of Scripture texts, at the bottom of the page, to 
show that all this is right and true according to the Bible ! Your quo- 
tation, and mine, founded on the same reference, differ very materi- 
ally ! Will you please to explain the disagreement? 

1 would now follow you through one or two of the heads of what 
I suppose you intend as an argument against the Catholic rule of faith. 
But really, there are so many contradictions under my eyes, as I look 
upon the first part of your last epistle, that I am at a loss to under- 
stand whether you admit or reject the succession from the Apostles 
in the ministry of teaching. First, you say, that ‘as the claim 5 (of the 
Chatholic Church) ‘to infallibility, rests on the notion of succession, 
it falls to the ground, and with it our rule of faith.’ Next, you say, 
that if the Apostles had successors, then all must have had them, and 
as there were twelve apostles, so there should be exactly twelve suc- 
cessors, every one of whom should be a Pope ! Then, these succes- 
sors, if there were any, must be able to work miracles. And then, 
finally, you say that I am uncandid for ‘representing you as holding 
that the Apostles had no successors ! 5 And a little farther still, you 
tell us, that ‘you hold to a commission still standing and binding which 
reaches to the end of time. 5 When you tell us clearly what you 
mean by all this, I shall be extremely happy to meet any arguments 
you may be disposed to put forward. In the mean time, it is mani- 
fest, that I cannot drive you from a position, until you signify exactly 
what ground you mean to assume. 

The whole of your next position is one continuous train of misre- 
presentation. You begin by asserting that on my plan every preacher 
or teacher ‘must be infallible!! 5 And taking this assumption, un- 
founded though it be, for the ground work of your reasoning, you 
draw your own consequences. But as ‘my plan does not require eve- 
ry preacher or teacher to be infallible, 5 so your deductions founded on 
this hypothesis are gratuitous, and are overturned by the simple de- 
nial of both the premises and J conclusion. ‘My plan, 5 as you call 
it, is that Jesus Christ, after having proved, that he was sent by the 
Father, for the establishment of a divine religion, as well as for the 
redemption of the world, instituted a ministry of teaching in his 
church — that this ministry was to extend with the duration of time 
— that it vai the chtnnel of communication, by which the knowledge 


96 


CONTROVERSY. 


.. t 

of that divine religion should be conveyed to all nations, — and that 
to this ministry of teaching, the Son of God actually promised the 
Spirit of Truth and his own perpetual presence all days, even till the 
consummation of the world. This is ‘my plan:’ and if you feel your- 
self competent to overturn it, the first step is — to state it correctly. 
Tl\e next step is, to take up those passages of the Scripture history, 
by which it is proved that this was the means appointed by Christ, 
and show that, instead of proving the ministry of teaching, they prove, 
on the contrary, that all infallibility ceased with the death of the Apos- 
tles, except the infallibility of individual opinion, in the private inter- 
pretation of Scriptural doctrine. It would be the mere repetition of 
unanswered arguments, were I again to adduce the proofs and rea- 
soning of my former letters on this subject. It is useless for me to 
publish the same proofs of the Catholic rule of faith in every letter. 
If you had taken up my arguments, stated them in my own words, 
suffered them to enjoy the meaning which they possessed, as they went 
forth from ray own pen, refuted, or attempted honorably to refute 
them, then it might be necessary to review the testimonies adduced 
to show that Christ established the immortal, uniform Catholic teach- 
ing of his Church, as the only infallible rule of faith.. I refer the 
reader to a serious perusal of iny letters on this subject, Nos. 5 and 
7 : and let him ask himself, as he is to answer at the last day, whether, 
according to the evidences furnished on either side, the testimonies 
of reason, revelation and history, by which the Catholic rule of faith 
is supported, are not infinitely stronger than any thing you have been 
able to produce in favor of private interpretation. 1 appeal to the 
reader to say, whether your letters, thus far, instead of presenting a 
clear chain of controversial reasoning on any one subject, are not an 
'olla-podrida’ of crimination, scandalous anecdote, fierce assertion, 
and general evasion of the question on which we are disput- 
ing. 

It may be useful to state again this subject now under discussion 
That there is ‘an infallible rule of faith, appointed by Christ, to guide 
us in matters of religion, and to settle disputes in his Church’ is 
agreed. Now the Catholic church, being a visible and perpetual so- 
ciety, and the original inheritor of the doctrines, commissions and 
promises of Jesus Christ, leans, as it were, on the arm of her Divine 
founder; — trusts in his promises, discharges his commission, and tes- 
tifies to all nations, during all days, what are the true doctrines, of 
which it was said, ‘He, thatbelieveth not, shall be condemned.’ Mark 
xvi. 16. How shall we know what we must believe, in order to es- 
cape this condemnation ? That Jesus provided an infallible means, to 
arrive at this knowledge, is admitted by my Rev. opponent. Then it 
must be either the Catholic or the Protestant rule of faith. That it 
is not the Protestant principle, appears to me one of the clearest mo- 
ral truths that ever presented itself to human understanding. 

1. Because that principle stabs the authority of the sacred volume, 
which it professes to cherish. That principle makes the Bible, as 
efficient to overthrow, as to uphold, any doctrine of Christianity.— 
According to that principle, no man can be certain what doctrines 
.jfcsus Christ revested and required men to believe, at the risk of be- 


CONTROVERSY. 


97 


ing condemned. Let the sincere Protestant reader ask himself, what 
is in reality his rule of faith. His ministers tell him — the Bible alone. 
Let him then take up the Bible and read these words of our blessed 
Redeemer — ‘the Father and 1 are one;’ turn, then, to the other words, 
‘the Father is greatet than I.’ That one of these passages, is to be 
explained by the other, is certain: but which shall take the preference 
of the other, the sacred writings do not determine. If he is a Uni- 
tarian he will come to the conclusion, that Christ is not God. If he is 
a Presbyterian, his opinions will be different. In the mean time, his 
belief, no matter to which side he belongs, is founded, not on the Bi- 
ble, but on what he thinks to be the meaning of the Bible. Now, Rev. 
Sir, I request you, as a favour, to take up these two texts, and show 
me and our readers, how you can save the Divinity of Jesus Christ 
from the destructive operation of the Protestant rule of faith, in the 
hands of the Unitarian. If you can and will do this, it will prove a 
service to religion, at which, although it by no means concerns me, I 
shall heartly rejoice. What is said here, in relation to this funda- 
mental article, is equally true of every other tenet of religious beb’ef. 
I defy any Protestant in the whole world, who is consistent with his 
own rule of faith, and rational in its application, if he will only take 
the pains to analyze his belief, to find it resting on any other founda- 
tion, save his own private opinion. For if his rule of faith be the Bi- 
ble alone, then he must fling to the winds all creeds, confessions, and 
teachings of men. And when he has perused the Bible, if he is asked 
what doctrines it contains, he will be obliged to answer according to 
his opinions of its meaning. You believe in predestination; — another, 
reading the Bible with equal sincerity, disbelieves it: — a third reads the 
Bible and believes in everlasting punishment: — a fourth rejects 
that belief, &c. Are they all right? Certainly not; though they may 
be all sincere. Is it the Bible that deceives them ? Certainly it is 
not. But they are deceived by the Protestant rule of faith, which 
taught them, that in order to know doctrines had been revealed by the 
Saviour of men, each individual must pass the Bible through the cru- 
cible of his own private judgment. And, though his mind should 
have undergone a thousand changes, as the meaning of the inspired 
book, still the Protestant rule of faith has determined, with the hand 
of destiny, that he shall end where he began, and never arrive at any 
thing more certain than opinion. 

Not so the Catholic. He may read the Scriptures, notwithstanding 
thercalumnies that Protestantism has perpetuated against the church, 
from one generation to another, since the era of the ‘Reformation.’ — 
But on points of doctrine, he does not substitute his own opinions, 
by way of inspiring the sacred text. He takes it for granted, that the 
meaning was understood, before he came into existence. He inquires 
what it is of the church, which has been the guardian equally of the 
book, and of the doctrines it contains, since the day, when Jesus laid 
her foundations, on the rock of eternal truth. Her pastors have never 
ceased to teach the things, which, according to Revelation, we must 
believe and practice, in order to be saved. By this rule of faith 
the whole Christian world was united in doctrine, when the Father 
of Protestantism began to sound the trumpet of religious discord, and 


98 


CONTROVERSY. 


to preach new opinions, 1500 years after Christians had been warned, 
not to receive any new doctrines, even though the should be preach- 
ed by an ‘angel from heaven.’ 

2. The Protestant rule of faith is that, which was adopted by all 
the acknowledged heresies of antiquity. By this rule of private in- 
terpretation, the Sabellians denied the Trinity of persons in God, 
(St. August, lib. de h seres, cap. 41.) — the Arians,the Divinity of Christ 
— the Macedonians, the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. By this rule, 
the Manicheans rejected the Old Testament — the Pelagians denied 
Original Sin — and so, of all others. Did Christ then appoint as the 
infallible rule of faith a principle of guidance, which, in its legitimate 
use, and not by its abuse, has given rise to all the herisies of ancient 
and modern times ? 

In the Catholic Church, on the contrary, heresy has never found a 
resting place. The truth of doctrine, which had always been taught 
by the pastors, and believed by all, was present every where to con- 
vict the novelty of error. Protestants indeed, have asserted, that the 
church had apostatized, but none accuse her of heresy. Being herself 
the oldest society of Christians, there was no other from which she 
could have sepera ted. We meet the charge of apostacy, by saying, 
that if she did apostatize, as they will have it, then ‘the gates of 
hell prevailed against her,’ — contrary to the Saviour’s promise ! Are 
they prepared for this? But if the Saviour’s promise did not fail, 
‘then the gates of hell did not prevail against her, and Jesus Christ 
was still with her, when Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the King of 
England, took it into their heads to make churches of their own. — 
Think you, Rev. Sir, that the Redeemer forgot his promise, or for- 
sook his spouse, by abandoning his own church: did Z'um say, ‘our 
Lord hath forsaken me, and our Lord hath forgotten me ? Why; can 
a woman forget her infant, that she will not have pity on the son of 
her womb ? And if she should forget, yet will I not forget thee. Be- 
hold I have written thee in my hands.’ Isaiah, chap. xlix. 14. 

3. In your last letter, you lay it down as an argument against the 
Catholic rule of faith, that the Apostles alone were inspired and in- 
fallible And thus, in your thoughtless zeal, you strike a fatal blow, 
although I am sure you did not intend it, at a large portion of the 
New Testament. If the Apostles alone were inspired and infallible, 
as you assert, then what is to become of the two Gospels of St. 
Luke and St. Mark? What is to become of the Acts of the 
Apostles? It is well known that the authors of these books were 
not Apostles, ‘and had not seen the Lord.’ Will Protestants adopt 
your ruinous argument, I mean assertion, on this subject, which, if it 
were true, would blast the authority of so large a portion of the writ- 
ten word of God ? Will they not rather, in this instance at least, 
join with me, to shield the sacred writings from the destruction of your 
weapons ? 

4. You have frequently in your letters appealed to the prejudices 
of our Protestant readers, on the subject of what you are pleased to 
call the Apocryphal Scriptures. But how, I would ask, are you 
enabled by the Protestant rule of faith, to determine, what books are 
canonical? That this cannot be done by the Scripture itself, ispalpa- 


CONTROVERSY. 


99 


bly evident. You certainly cannot be ignorant, that several books, 
which in tlie first ages laid claim to inspired authority, are not in the 
canon. Of these I may name a few — the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews, or'according to the Apostles — the memoirs of the Apostles 
— quoted frequently by Justin Martyr, — and different tracts under 
the names of Peter, Matthias, and other Apostl«. (See Euseb. lib. 
iii. c. 3. 21.) Why, then, are those left out of the reformed canon of 
the Protestant Scriptures? On the other hand, the inspiration of the 
Epistle of St. James, the Epistle of St. Jude, the Epistle of the He- 
brews, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of 
St. John, and the book of Revelations, was controverted in the same 
ages. And why, I would again ask, are these admitted into your 
reformed canon? Luther admitted the Epistle of St. James, in his 
edition of 1529 and 1534, but scornfully expelled it from those of 1535 
and 1540. It continued to be excluded from the following Lutheran 
editions after his death, viz : that of 1548, — 66, — 72, — 75, — 82,- — 89, 
— 93, — 99. So, also was the Epistle of St. Jude excluded from the 
edition published in 1619. The Apocalypse is excluded from the 
same editions, and that of 1609. 

As to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the good ‘Reformer’ did not know 
exactly what to think ! After the two editions, of 1529 and 1534, it 
was agreed, that it should be retained, and tolerated as apocryphal, 
and so it continued in the Lutheran Bibles, until the time of the two 
Wallemburgs, say 1669. Now every Protestant has the same right 
to sport with the sacred books that Luther had. And since the Scrip- 
tures themselves, do not determine what books are canonical and what 
books are not, is it not something likearogance for you or Mr. Martin 
Luther to mutilate the inspired volume, and lop oft’, at your pleasure, 
branches from the tree of life, by capriciously applying the pruning 
hook of private, individual opinion. By what rule, then, can you 
prove according to the Protestant principle of belief, that these books 
are canonical, and that those are not canonicle ? Let the General 
Assembly try their wisdom on the question. 

5. The Protestant rule of faith supposes, that the Scriptures are 
plain and obvious in their meaning. And yet, — the plea for the Re- 
formation, and the cry of the Reformers, was, that the whole Catho- 
lic Church had been mistaken as to the true meaning of this same 
book; — which was so plain withal, that every Protestant, who has been 
blessed with ten months" education, may take it up and ‘read as he 
runs !’ — and that every such Protestant, is bound to believe, that his 
crude conception of its meaning, make him wiser and more infallible, 
than all the councils, fathers, teachers, pastors and people, of all the 
ages of the Christian church ! ! ! 

6. But even admitting the absurd supposition, that such a man is 
qualified to understand the meaning of what the book says, how 
does he know that the book is, in all respects, the same now, that it 
was, when it came from the hands of its inspired authors? Has it 
been correctly translated ? Has it been fairly copied, from one man- 
uscript to another, previous to printing? These are difficulties, for 
which his rule of faith furnishes no solution. And these difficul- 
ties are increased an hundred fold, when he remembers that the Scrip- 

14 




m 

turee were in the keeping of the Catholic Church, which the preju- 
dices of his education have taught him to look upon, as a universal 
anti-Christian conspiracy; and that the work of transcribing the Bi- 
ble, generally developed on those monk9, whose name is synonymous, 
in his mind, with ignorance, dishonesty, perfidiousness and cruelty. — 
•What !’ he will ask with astonishment; — 'is it from such a source, 
that we receive the written word of God ? — Yes, — gentle reader — do 
not be startled at the discovery. Before the squabble between Mar- 
tin Luther and Leo X. in the sixteenth century, there was not a sin- 
gle Protestant in the whole universe, to take care of the Bible. Mr. 
Breckinridge may tell you, that God was pleased to reveal the Pro- 
testant rule of faith 1500 years after he had revealed the Christian 
religion— and that the Holy Bible was not in the least tainted, by the 
tide of corruption, on which it floated down. But, you may reply to 
him, in my name, that God could have perverted the doctrines of the 
Church in the same way — and that, if Martin Luther believed her, 
when she told him, that the Scriptures are the inspired written word 
of God; — he might have believed her, when she told him, what doc- 
trines they contained — especially, when it is remembered that if he, 
and not the Church, that undertook to give them a new meaning, with 
which Christianity, during the same space of 1500 years had been to- 
tally unacquainted. With this remark I leave my reader, and Kev. 
opponent, to finish the dialogue. The latter will have an opportunity 
to speak for himself ; and the public will see how he will meet these 
difficulties. 

The Catholic believes the infallibility of the church. The grounds- 
of this belief, are briefly stated in my last two letters; particularly in 
No. 5. He knows that there ha9 been no such thing as a moral 
death, or chasm, in the teaching and belief of those doctriues, which 
Christ revealed, and men are bound to receive, as they value their 
salvation. He knows, that in this sense, the church is a witness to 
the universe: and, as he receives her testimony when she says, that 
Scriptures are the inspired word of God, — that she received and pre- 
served them as such: so he receives her testimony, when she says, that 
the opinions of heretics — no matter of what age or country, are not 
the doctrines, which she received, with the Scriptures, from Jesus 
Christ and his Apostles, — and he yields, but a 'reasonable obedience,’ 
to her authority, when she admonishes him, not to follow the notions 
of Martin Luther, or any other individual. 

Wishing to stand corrected, as to the length of my letter, by the 
gentle reproof of our publishers, and the moral of the 'wounded 
snake,’ with which you began your last epistle, I deem it prudent to 
hasten to a conclusion. There are one or two points, however, which 
you have protruded on the consideration of our readers with no other 
view that I can perceive, except to gratify prejudice, where it exists, 
and to divert general attention from your palpable abandonment of 
the rule of faith. To these I shall briefly advert, — although, until you 
save agreed to clear up the points, on which we are at issue, in the 
way I have proposed;— I feel that the moral sense of the community 
•would sustain me in refusing to notice any reference of yours, in 
which the whole passage is not quoted. 


CONTROVERSY. 


101 


In your last epistle you ask me, to ‘explain what Pope Nicholas 
meant, when he said to the Emperor Michael, ‘The Pope is a God and 
therefore men cannot judge him.’ Now, as you have the modesty in 
this instance, to acknowledge that it is instruction you stand in need 
of, I should be sorry to refuse what you desire. Know then, and un- 
derstand in the first place, that Pope Nicholas never said, ‘the Pope is 
a God.’ Here I might stop: — but secondly, know and understand 
that the Emperor Michael, had expelled Ignatius, Patriarch of Con- 
stantinople from his see: — and that Pope Nicholas was expostulating 
with him, on the unlawfulness of disturbing the spiritual order of the 
church, by the exercise of secular power. Among other things, he 
reminds the Emperor, that his predecessor, Constantine the Great, 
when called upon to sit in judgment on the bishops of the church, re- 
fused to do so; and, addressing them in the figurative language of the 
Scripture, (Psalm lxxxi. 6.) said to them: ‘Vos dii estis, a vero Deo 
constitute — ‘Ye are Gods, appointed by the true God’ — to show, that 
he, Constantine, regarded their spiritual authority, as an authority 
from God, and therefore too sacred for the judgment of temporal 
princes, and the interference of secular power. Similar language 
was used, in similar circumstances, by Theodosius the younger. And 
these are the examples, which Pope Nicholas is holding up to the me- 
mory of the Emperor Michael, to induce him to desist, and to show 
him how much the Emperors, his predecessors, had respected the au- 
thority of God, in the persons of his ministers; — and that, though 
he could command armies, and ravage provinces, yet he could 
neither bestow, nor take away, the spiritual authority of a bishop, in 
the church of Christ. Constantine used the words in the sense I have 
mentioned. Pope Nicholas did not use them as his own; but referred 
to them in the sense, and for the purpose here stated. He speaks of 
himself, in the document, as the humble ‘minister’ of Jesus Christ. 

If, then, you had waited for this information; you would not have 
exposed yourself, nor deceived your readers, by building the follow- 
ing assertion on the circumstance, which I have just explained. Your 
words are evidence of zeal, which would better befit a better cause : 
but it is not ‘the zeal according to knowledge.’ ‘The Pope usurps the 
rights of the people, and the seat of the Saviour, and would sit en- 
throned on the riches of the commonwealth of Israel. In a word 
your infallible church, thus speaks of the Pope; and your infallible 
Pope loves to have it so.’ On this whole concern, 1 have only to say, 
that if I were found as you are, in this matter, I feel that Catholics 
would blush for me: — and that heaven will judge the calumnies that 
have been heaped on the Catholic church and on her supreme visible 
head — the Bishop of Rome. 

You make a long extract from the Council of Lateran: — on which 
I have two questions to ask you. First, do you give it as a literal 
and continuous translation ? Second, do you affirm that in the origi- 
nal it has the same general meaning that it seems to have in the quo- 
tation ? As you say you have the ‘original before you,’ you can, of 
course, have no difficulty in giving a positive answer to these que»- 
tic®*. In the mean time, a little information on the character of that 


102 


CONTROVERSY. 


quotation, or rather the circumstance to which it. relates, may not be 
useless or uninteresting to the reader. 

It is to be observed, in the first place, that this council was held at 
a time when the feudal system was in its full operation. A council 
was, as it were, the general congress of Christendom; in which, states 
and sovereigns were represented for the purpose of conferring to- 
gether, on such matters, as concerned the general welfare. These 
secular representatives had nothing to do with the definitions ot doc- 
trines or morals; — and the infallibility of the church had nothin" to 
do with any thing else. Still, it was deemed the most convenient 
time and place, for sovereigns and statesmen, to adopt such means in 
conjunction with the clergy, as might protect the altar and the throne; 
or, as the exigencies of the period required. The social picture, 
mingled theocracy and civil policy, of the puritan settlements in New 
England, presents but a diminutive analogy, when the pilgrim fathers 
and their immediate successors, (not to speak of other things far more 
serious,) would hardly ring the town-house bell, unless they found a 
text of Scripture for it. 

At the period of this Council the Albigenses were scattering the 
materials of civil and religious revolution, in the bosom of peaceable 
empires;— among nations, which acknowledged but one God, and 
knew but one religion, whereby he was to be worshipped. Sovereigns 
were obliged to provide for their own safety. They may have fore- 
seen those consequences which Mr. Breckinridge proclaims would 
have resulted from the toleration of the Bible Society in Russia. — 
They would have been obliged to abolish the institutions just as the 
Albigenses might think proper to direct, or ‘else lose their crown.’ — 
This was the fate, we are told, which aw'aited the Russian autocrat 
if he had not put down the Bible Society ! ! ! If this be so, as Mr. 
Breckinridge asserts, then there is no man, who, placed in the same 
situation, and foreseeing the consequences, would not have done the 
same thing as Alexander. So it was in the temporal regulations 
adopted by the commingled representatives of Church and States, at 
the general council of Lateran. Had they not the right, I would ask, 
as the majority, by a million to one, to take measures for the common 
welfare ? The doctrine of Christ teaches submission to ‘the pow r ers 
that be Consequences, such as you predicted of the Bible Society 
in Russia, have always followed the footsteps of fanaticism. Had not, 
then, the Catholic kings, and Catholic barons, and Catholic vassals, 
and all the orders of feudalism in Catholic Europe, the right, by vir- 
tue of their majority, to take precautions against such consequences ? 
No Republican, I should think, would deny it. You have said, in- 
deed, that ‘you render unto Csesar the things that are Csesar’s’ — 
speaking, I presume, in the name of your Church. But your hypo- 
thetical prediction, in reference to ‘Bible Society in Russia,’ is rather 
a strange commentary on the text. And, by the bye, is it not a sin- 
gular coincidence with your remark, that ‘Ceesar’ never was in the 
power of your Church, but once; and that then the ‘tribute money’ 
was paid with the blood of a Protestant king ! Should you not, then, 
delicately touch the subject of persecution, until you can persuade 
yourself that history has lost her memory r At a time when there 


CONTROVERSY. 


10 $ 

were not, perhaps, a million of Presbyterians in the whole world, Mr, 
John Knox, the insular founder of Presbyterianism, laid it down as a 
maxim, that, ‘It is not only lawful to punish unto the death, such as 
labour to subvert the true religion; — but the magistrates and people 
are bound so to do, unless they will provoke the wrath of God against 
themselves.’ (Appellation of John Knox annexed to his History of 
the Reformation, page 25.) Had not Catholic Europe as good a right 
to take measures of safety, against the revolutionary spirit, of a few 
religious innovators in the twelfth century; — as a few religious inno- 
vators had to ‘punish unto the death,’ all those who should contradict 
their religious opinions, in the sixteenth century ? Now, I again sub- 
mit to your cool reflection, whether it would not be as profitable to 
your fame, and to your cause, if you would condescend to redeem 
your signature, by ‘adhering strictly to the subject of discussion for 
the time being’ — as it has been, to wander into the labyrinths of irre- 
levant matter, from which you do not seem to have well studied the 
faculties of retreat. 

In conclusion, I would remark, that my charity for the mass of 
Protestants, has been infinitely enlarged, by my experience in this 
controversy. I would not dare to question the wisdom or the justice 
of that divine Being, who permits it to be so:— But when I consider 
the character of their books, and the weapons of their theologians, I 
can hardly imagine how it could be otherwise. They hate truth; not 
because it is truth; but because their ministers, and their books teach 
them to regard truth as error. And they are confirmed in their ha- 
tred, by the general ‘delusion’ which teaches them to regard the pre- 
judices, that have been installed by their books, and education as the 
testimony of the pure word of God, the Bible alone. How many of 
them, after having been ‘tossed to and fro,’ on the deluge of religious 
opinions, with which Protestantism has inundated the world, and not 
finding whereon to rest their foot, would return, like the weary dove, 
to the ‘ark,*from which their fathers, in an hour of irritation and ex- 
citement, inconsiderably launched forth into the great deep. For my- 
self, it has taught me to bless God with inexpressible gratitude, for 
having permitted me to be born in the Catholic Church of Christ; oth- 
erwise, I might have ranked among the fiercest of her opponents, and 
imagined that, in persecuting her, even with my pen, I was ‘doing God 
service.’ Thus, I may say with the poet, though not in the literal 
sense, 

Haud ignarut mali, nwtfem’succurrere disco. 

Yours respectfully, 

Jno. Hughes. 

P. S. — Bishop Kenrick is entirely satisfied with your explanation 
of the 'mistake;’ — which, it seems, was not a mistake, after all; since 
that ‘most respectable and responsible gentleman, on whose authority 
you relied, still insists that such a warning, (viz. a prohibition to read 
this controversy,) was given, on the day named, and in one of our 
churches, in Philadelphia, by a Roman Catholic priest. Now, as this 
is a matter of some consequence to us, will you be pleased to request 
this ‘most respectable and responsible gentleman,’ to tax his memory, 


104 


CONTROVERSY. 


and try to recollect in which of our churches he was, on that day. Tell 
him, that there are only five Catholic churches in the city; and that he 
may leave the two, in which Dishop Kenrick and myself officiate, out 
of the number. 1 am really curious to know in which of the other 
three the warning was given; — and so slyly, it seems, that he was the 
only person that overheard it ! ! J. H. 


CONTROVERSY No. X, 


RULE OF FAITH. 

New ‘York , 3 d April , 1833. 

To the Rev. John Hughes, — Sir , 

“No falsehood can endure 

Touch of celestial temper, hut returns 
To its own likeness;— up it starts 
Discover’d and surprised.” 

There is a heavenly virtue in the sword of the Spirit, when faith- 
fully wielded by the hand even of a frail man, which error cannot re- 
sist. The ‘atrocious crime’ of having ‘told you the truth,’ as to your 
system, and your authorities, has, I regret to perceive, disturbed your 
temper not a little; and led you to depart, not only from the dignity 
ol a minister, but from the decencies of a gentleman. Though you 
begin your letter with professions of decorum, you charge me in less 
than two columns with six deliberate falsehoods! But 1 advise you 
to be composed; for the good people of this country do not think by 
force, nor believe upon prescription. I know it is natural for a sys- 
tem, which has rested for ages on authority, to be impatient of inqui- 
ry into its title to dominion. But the days of unquestioned lordship 
over men’s consciences have gone by; and as you stand the represen- 
tative of a body, claiming infallibility, wisdom suggests that you 
should not stumble in the example, while you are pleading for the 
doctrine ! 

Now, even admitting that 1 am mistaken in the interpretation of 
Bellarmine, as to ‘fere de fide,’ & c.; and of the Pope as to ‘statuere 
articulos fide,’ — must every such mistake be charged to a want of 
veracity? I put it to your Christian honour, I level it even to your 
common honesty — can you defend a course so much at war with can- 
dour, propriety and justice? In these references, did 1 not meet your 
call, time after time, ‘with quotations, translations, and expositions? 
And, now, either by your extracts or mine, are not the facts on which 
a just judgment may be formed, fairly before the public? 

But so far from thinking or owning myself mistaken, every return 
of my attention to the subject, and every struggle you make to shield 
your cause, give me increased conviction that i am right. What sur- 
prises me exceedingly is, that you cavil at these points, and make 
these charges against me, when such a mass of unanswered matter, is 
left by you entirely unnoticed; and your strange liberties with ancient 
testimony left wholly unexplained. I will refer you for example once 
more, to the famous quotation from Tertullian, where you omitted 
half the passage, (as was shown by me in the next letter) and thus 
made the other half prove the very reverse of what the author intend- 
ed. I have called again and again for your explanation, and you have 
given none ! 

1 will here repeat the quotations side by side. 

Mr. Hughes’ quotation, intended to The ungarbled passage, 
show, that Rome was the seat of the “Survey the Apostolical chuches in 
true church, and the Pope the supreme which the very chairs of the Apo»* 
bead and successor of Peter, ties still preside over the jr station* 


106 


CONTROVERSY. 


in which their own letters are recited* 
uttering the voice, and representing 
the presence of each of them. Is Acha- 
ia nearest to thee? Thou hast Corinth. 
If thou art not far fom Macedonia, 
thou hast the Philippians,and the Thes . 
salonians. If thou canst go to Asia, 
thou hast Ephesus; but if thou are near 
Italy, thou hast Rome, whence to U3 
also authority is near at hand.’* 

And now we ask, is this not taking a very great liberty with the 
evidence of this father? Does he not put all the Apostles, and all their 
seats and cities, Achaia, Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, &c.on the same 
footing of ‘authority*’ as Peter and Home? Yet Mr. Hughes 
adduce apart of this to prove just the reverse! 

I have still another illustration, if possible, more palpable than the 
last. It is your quotation from standards not our own, to prove that 
the Presbyterians, united under ‘the General Assembly,’ in this coun- 
try, ‘forbid the toleration of a false religion.’ You refer, with an air 
of great assurance, to the edition published by Towar & Hogan, in 
1829. There was no edition of our standard published by Towar & 
Hogan in 1829. And in the edition published by them in 1827, the 
phrase which you profess to cite is not found, either in the page to 
which you refer, or in any other part of the book ! ! The public has 
already judged of this. In my last letter, I gave you references to 
our standards, repelling your unfounded and slanderous charge. You 
say you ‘find no such reference.’ This fact ought to have led a can- 
did man to suspect his mistake; and a just one to seek its correction. 
But you go on to give more extracts; and then call on me to account 
forthe discrepance of our references. In responding, (1.) I assure 
you I hardly know how to account for it as it respects yourself; when 
on a former occasion, I referred a misrepresentation of yours to igno- 
rance, you declined the apology which it furnished. Where to rest 
this mistake, I know not. — (2.) As to the extract itself, and the source, 
the only way in which I can account for your extraordinary misre- 
presentation is to suppose you have availed yourself of a reprint of 
the Larger Catechism and Westminster Confession of Faith, as they 
originally appeared in Great Britain in 1647. To this you refer (in 
letter No. 1.) when you say with more flippancy than historic truth — 
‘a number of men appointed at Westminster, A. D. 1647, by order of 
Parliament to make a religion forthe United Kingdom of Great Bri- 
tain and Ireland.’ It was a glaring preversion to say that there as- 
sembly was convoked to ‘make a religion.’ But now you assume this 
high prerogative for the Presbyterian church ! Truly we are not yet 
prepared to take our seats by the side, or in the bosom of the church 
of Rome, as an intolerant communion and a persecution power, how- 
ever your hasty and self-convicted zeal may have indiscreetly caught 
at the doings of another age, and land, and people, and charged them 
upon us ! Need I tell you at this late day, that some fifty years ago, 
when the basis was laid of the present union of the Presbyterian 
church in the United States in one General Assembly, and the for- 
mularies of the church prepared, all the offensive passages which you 


“If you live near Italy, you see be- 
fore your eyes the Roman Church. — 
Happy Church’ to which the Apostles 
left their inheritance of doctrines with 
their blood! where Peter was crucified 
like his Master; where John was be- 
headed like the Baptist.”— [See letter 
of Mr. Hughes, No. 5. 


CONTROVERSY. 


have quoted were solemly rejected; that the passages to which I have 
already referred you were solemnly adopted; that those you cite are 
not, and never were a part of our standards any more than the decrees 
of 1 rent; or the creed of Pius IV.; or the acts of the British Parlia- 
ment ? While the public mind alternates between surprise at your 
ignorance, and suspicion of your motives, the question must often 
be repeated, how could die be ignorant ? Yet if not, how could he 
have. ventured on so extraordinary a misrepresentation? 

I give below, in contrast, the true extracts from our standards — and 
that which you have transferred to us from the Times and the Realms 
in. which the church and the state were united, and intolerance inse- 
parable from the very nature of that union. 


Extracts from tho Standards of the 
Presbyterian Church, on Toleration 
and the'Civil Magistrate. 

Form of Government, Rook 1st, chap. 
1st. sec. 1st. page 343, To war & Ho. 
gan’s edition. 1827. — “They are unan- 
imously of opinion, that God alone is 
Lord of the conscience, and therefore 
they consider the right of private judg- 
meat in all matters that respect religion 
as universal and unalienable.” 

Confession of Faith, 23d chap. 3d 
and 4th sections. — .“Civil magistrates 
mav notin the least interfere with mat- 
ters of faith — they should give no pre- 
ference to any one denomination of 
Christians above the rest— and ecclesi- 
astical persons should enjoy free, full, 
and unquestioned liberty,” &c. “It is 
the duty of the people to pray for the 
magistrates— and to be subject to their 
authority fox' conscience’ sake — from 
which ecclesiastical persons are not 
exempted: much less hath the Pope any 
.power or jurisdiction over them in 
, their dominions — and least of all to 
deprive them of their dominion or 
lives, if he shall judge them to be he- 
retics. 


Mr. Hughes’ misrepresentation. 

“The star.dai'd of Presbyterianism 
in the United States, and in the 19th 
century, makes it a sin against the se- 
cond commandment of God to tolerate 
a false religion, — It is true the Gene- 
ral Assembly have not yet told us what 
religions are to be regarded as ‘false.* 
(Mr. It’s Letter, No. 7.) But in the 
very same chapter and section, (23rd 
chap 3d sec.) I find the following: — 
‘Tie” (the civil magistrate) “hath au- 
thority,' and it is his duty, to take order, 
that unity and peace be preserved in 
the church; that . the truth of God be 
preserved pure and entire; that all 
blasphemies and heresies be suppress- 
ed; all corruptions and abuses in wor- 
ship and discipline prevented or re- 
formed; and all the ordinances of God 
.duly, settled, administered and observ- 
ed. For the better effecting whereof, 
he hath power to call Synods. to be pre- 
sent at them, and to provide thatwhat- 
soever is transacted in them, be accord- 
ing to the mind of God.” (Mr. H’s 
Letter, No. 9.) 


It seems peculiarly fit, in juxta-position with the above, to advert 
to the decrees of the Council of 4th Lateral!, (extracted into my last 
letter,) for the extermination of heretics. You ask (l.j ‘Do you give 
it as a literal and continuous translation? I answer, unhesitatingly 
• — I do. It is as literal as the sense will bear. (2.) You ask, ‘do you 
affirm that in the original, it has the same general meaning that it 
seems to have in the quotation ?’ I answer, it is from your own ‘Ca- 
ranza*s summa conciliorunr that I quote. As I suppose you have the 
original, you can compare it with any extracts, and with my transla- 
tion. I omitted the original for want of space alone. I considered the 
. 2d question an indignity oiTered to the feelings of any honest man. — 
Go to the original, and give us another translation, and if you can, 
prop a sinking cause with good sense; but do not think to turn the 


108 


CONTROVERSY. 


edge of these solid authorities by charging me again w ith falsehood ! 
Your remarks on this decree against heretics are most peculiar. You 
say (1.) ‘The council was held at a time when the feudal system was 
in fult operation.’ You give no 2d, but go on to add, ‘A Council was, 
as it were, a general congress of Christendom, in which states and 
sovereigns were represented,’ &c. Next, ‘The secular representa- 
tives had nothing to do with the definition of doctrines and morals, 
‘and the infallibility of the church had nothing to do with any thing 
else.’ Next, ‘The sovereigns, in conjunction with the clergy, deem- 
ed it a convenient time and place, to adopt such measures as might 
protect the altar and the throne;’ lastly, the Albigenses were endan- 
gering the universal state, the universal church, and ‘the sovereigns 
(of Europe) were obliged to provide for their own safety.’ 

(1.) Now this council is acknowledged by your church as a gene- 
ral council, lawfully convened. — The necessary result on your prin- 
ciples is, that its acts were infallible. But you are driven to defend 
some of its decrees, by abandoning others. Yours is a strange alem- 
bic, by which you separate the secular from the infallible decrees. — 
But did not this decree against the heretics directly concern ‘faith and 
morals?’ Heresy is relative to faith as departed from, and the mur- 
der of heretics is a violation of the moral law; and the command to 
do it, supposes obedience, which is a moral act. The decree desig- 
nates ‘every heresy extolling itself against this holy, orthodox, Catho- 
lic faith, which we before expounded.’ ‘Those who before expound- 
ed this faith’ were of course not ‘seculars,’ for you say ‘they had 
nothing to do with the definition of doctrines and morals.’ — There- 
fore, according to your own admission, it was done ecclesiastically' — 
and therefore infallibly. And what makes this certain is, that a little 
below it says, ‘all heresies, denoted by the church, must be exter- 
minated by the secular power,’ &c. The decree, then, is all your 
own. 

(2.) When you call this council, a ‘congress of Christendom,’ you 
make the Pope by your own confession, the universal head of the state 
and the church. The Pope presided — it was an ecclesiastical gene- 
ral council — the states and sovereigns were represented in it — and the 
body passed decrees on the lives and property of subjects, on the 
crowns of princes; and on the allegiance of subjects, as well as on 
matters of faith and morals; and the ultimate, the supreme sanction 
for bringing kings to their orthodoxy, was this; ‘But if the temporal 
lord, required and warned by the church, shall neglect to purge his 
territory from this heretical filth, let him, by the Metropolitan and 
comprovincial Bishops, be tied by the bond of excommunication;’— 
‘and if he scorn to satisfy within a year, let that be signified to the 
Pope, that he may thenceforth denounce his vassals absolved from 
their fidelity,’ (i. e. their allegiance to their prince) and may expose, 
(i. e. the Pope may expose,) his country to be seized on by Catholics, 
who, exterminating heretics, may possess it without any contradic- 
tion — and keep it in the purity of faith.’ 

(3.) While crowms are thus put at the Pope’s feet, and the lives of 
men are at his disposal, not a word is said ‘about providing for the 
safety of the sovereigns,’ at 'this congress of Christendom.’ No, 


CONTROVERSY. 


109 


their safety was in submission and silence; — and they felt themselves 
well off’ if, after holding the Pope’s stirrup, and kissing his feet, they 
could hold their crowns by doing homage for them, and their lives by 
his lordly grant. 

^ (i.) And then to think of explaining this atrocious decree, which 
deluged Europe in blood, by referring to the poor Albigenses, as dis- 
turbing the peace of kingdoms, and ‘obliging sovereigns to provide for 
their own safety,’ by indiscriminate extermination of all who did 
not think with them \ They were no more in strength and numbers, 
compared with all Europe, than a little flock of kids before a great 
army. 

(5.) But the strangest of all your expositions is this — ‘had not then 
Catholic kings, and Catholic barons, and Catholic vassals, all the or- 
ders of feudalism in Catholic Europe, the right by virtue of their ma- 
jority, to take precautions against such consequences? No republi- 
can, I should think, would deny it.’ The argument is, that a ma- 
jority have a right to exterminate the minority; for disagreeing with 
them in opinion. Heresy was the sin for which all these bloody acts 
were passed. No sin against the state is mentioned; nothing that it 
concerns the civil power to punish; but just what the Protestants of 
this land are doing, protesting against the Papacy! Yours is truly 
strange republicanism. How well for us, in view of old decrees and 
new arguments for them, that Protestants have yet the majority in 
our country ! 

But my heart grows sick at the recital. Indeed, sir, yours is a sad 
business, to defend or explain such enormities. But no skill can tor- 
ture it into propriety. No Jesuit can cover, or excuse or deny 
it. 

I next pass to meet your demand, and sustain my statement, ‘that 
the Catechism of the Council of Trent gives only four words of the 
second commandment, and closes with an expressive et cetera.’ I find 
that you are accustomed to make calls on me, which from their word- 
ing, convey the impression to the public that I am wholly in error as 
to some authority or fact, and then, when I produce the proof, instead 
of owning it, you drop it in silence. So you did in reference to the 
Pope’s anathematizing Bible Societies, so you did in reference to 
Bellarmine’s ‘fere de fide.’ Before the proof was adduced you 
brought a heavy charge against me. After it was produced, you do 
not say one word in the way of interpretation or argument, but pass 
the discussion with a petulant taunt. So as to the three systems in 
your church, as to the Pope’s supremacy — viz: a presidency, an un- 
limited monarchy, and deification. Twice have I brought proof, you 
answer only by a denial. 

And now as to the second commandment and the Council of Trent. 
You say my statement is ‘untrue,’ and that it is ‘bearing false witness 
against my neighbour.’ Now for the proof: 

Catechismus Concilii Tridenti Pii. Catechism of the Council of Trent 
V. Pontif. Max. Jussu promulgntus. published by order of Pope Pius V. 
Primum Prxceptum Decalogi. # 1st. Precept of the Decalogue. 

Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus qui I am the Lord thy God who led thee 
eduxi te de terra Egypt?, de Domo ser- out of the land of Egypt and out of 


110 CONTROVERSY, 

vitutis. Non habebis Deo3 alienos co- the house of bondage. Thou shalt, 
ram me. Non facies tibi sculptile, &c. have no other Gods before me. i hou 
Secundum Decalogi Pneceptum. shalt not make to thee a graven im- 
Non assumes nomen Domim De age, fcc. 

Tuiinvanum. Second Precept of t’ e Decalogue. 

Thou shalt not take the name of the 
Lord thy God in vain. 

Here then we see even as 1 have said, that four words only are giv- 
en, viz: non facies tibi sculptile, thou shalt not make to thee a graven 
image, and then follows the expressive et cetera, it is true these four 
words are fastened to the end of the first commandment, and no doubt 
for the purpose of, casting even them into the shade. But it is the 
real 2d commandment which begins with these four words. But how- 
ever you class the long and expressive command against making and 
bowing down to, and worshipping images, where are all the other por- 
tions of it? Are they not dropped ? And do we not clearly see why ? 
Here then is on one hand the catechism word for word, and on the 
other, Mr. Hughes denying it, and charging rnc with falsehood lor re- 
porting it. Truly your denial will presently be to ns, a stereotype 
proof the truth of a proposition. What is thus so clearly proved from 
the catechism of -the Council of Trent, the translations into various 
languages, copy in a greater or less degree according fo circumstan- 
ces. 1 have mentioned several instances of the kind in my last let- 
ter, You take no notice of them. There is now on my table an ex- 
ample, »‘The most Rev. Dr. 3. Butler’s Catechism, enlarged, improved, 
and recommended by the four Roman Catholic Archbishops of Ireland, 
as a general catechism for the kingdom.’ Philadelphia, published by 
Eugene Cummiskey, 1827, lesson 14. 1st commandment, I am the 
Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me, &c. 2d. 

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3d. Re- 
member the Sabbath day to keep it holy, &c. &c. Here is notone 
single word about graven images. Have 1 not justly called this ex- 
pressive silence ? 

Once more, your attempt at explaining Pope Nicholas 5 calling him- 
self a god, is a veil too thin to cover the deformity and blasphemy of 
The assumption. It is true that he quotes from the Emperor Constan- 
tine; but he so quotes as to approve of what he had said. Upon your 
construction, there is no meaning or sense in the reasoning of the 
Pope. Whereas the Pope uses the reference to prove himself supe- 
rior to all secular authority. In proof of this, see his words; Satis 
evidenterostenditur a seculari potestate nec ligari prorsus, nec solvi 
posse pontificem quern constat apio principe, Constantino (quod longe 
superius, memoravimus) Detim appellatum, nec posse Deum ab homi- 
nibus judicari manifesto! ’m est. It may very evidently be shown that 
the Pope, who as we have already related was called God by Prince 
Constantine, can neither be bound nor released by the secular autho- 
rities, for it is evident that God cannot be judged by men. 

Your pompous challenge to a reference, with the reason assigned 
for it, viz: that the language and the books about which we differ are 
unknown to the mass of our readers, is curious enough; especially 
when we consider that your public prayers and standard Bible are 


COfsTROVBES*. 


iKfc- 

both in an unknown tongue. I have uniformly studied to be simple, 
faithful, and full in my references. I now greet your arrival at the 
principle of private interpretation. If you will add to the points you 
mention, the question about the Catechism of the Council of Trent, 
and the other catechisms, and about the Pope calling himself God; 
also, the question of the true sense of my extract from the 4th Coun- 
cil of Lateran, and the interpretation of 2 Peter i. 20. then I will 
promptly agree to such a reference, it being understood that the par- 
ties shall be neither Roman Catholics nor Presbyterians. 

But now let us return to the line of our argument. If I am not 
greatly deceived, your reasoning in behalf of your rule of faith, ‘in 
toe apostolical succession’ has been fairly shown to be unscriptural 
and fallacious — 1 proceed to remark still farther. 

I. One of your methods of defending your church’s infallibility, is 
this, ‘if the church be not. infallible, then the gates of hell have pre- 
vailed against it, and the Redeemer has forgotten his promise to his 
spouse ’ Now. observe, (1.) The question in debate is whether this 
infallibili y was ever promised; and whether the existence, security, 
and triumph of the church at all depend upon such infallibility. We 
say not all. 'The gates of hell shall never prevail against the church, 
because Christ her head is with her. By such an inference therefore, 
you beg the question, but do not prove it. (2.) In this way also you 
assume without proof, that yours is the true church, and then argue 
that she is infallible. But you must first prove yours the true church, 
and the only true church; or else on your own system your conclusion 
is worth nothing. You can only prove it by private interpretation; — 
you cannot prove it all. (3.) Supposing that Christ did promise 
(which we 'deny) an infallible church on earth; there is another con- 
clusion far more obvious than that which you draw. It is this — the 
church of Rome has proved herself fallible in doctrine and fallible in 
morals — therefore the gates of hell have prevailed against her; — and 
she cannot be the true church of Christ. This is on your own prin- 
ciples, and you cannot consistently escape the conclusion. 

II. Allowing that Christ appointed an infallible tradition of doc- 
trine, and a succession of infallible teachers, then the church which 
does not dispense his ordinances, and teach his doctrines, as he in- 
stituted, and taught, cannot be a true church of Jesus Christ. Now I 
will prove that your church has corrupted the ordinances of Christ, 
and the doctrines of Christ. If so, she is destitute, of the true rule 
of faith, on your own principles. I referyou for proof of this to the 
decree of the Council of Trent, 21 Sess. 1st. and 2d. chaps. I sup- 
pose you have the original, and can compare it with this translation 
— “Although Christ the Lord did in the last supper institute this ve- 
nerable sacrament of the Kucharist, in the species of bread and wine, 
and thus delivered it to the Apostles;’ ‘and though from the beginning 
of the Christian religion, the use of both kinds, was not unfrequent 
— vet when in process of time, that practice, was, for weighty and 
just causes, changed, Holy Mother Church, recognizing her acknow- 
ledged authority, in the administration of the sacraments, approved 
the custom of communion in one kind, and commanded it to be ob- 
served as a law.’ Chap. iv. Canon 1st. ‘Whosoever shall affirm that 


i 




112 


CONTROVERSY. 


all and every one of Christ’s faithful are bound by divine command 
to receive the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds, as 
necessary to salvation, let him be accursed.’ 

Here then is (I.) a confession that Christ instituted the sacrament 
of the supper in bread and wine. (2.) That from the beginning the 
use of both the bread and the wine was common (not unfrequent.) — 
(3.) That there were weighty and just causes for changing (mark it!) 
Christ’s law. (4.) That the Roman Catholic Church make the change 
into a law. (.5.) Whosoever finds fault with this dreadful innovation 
is accursed. (6.) Vet this is no less, than dividing in twain a solemn 
sacrament of Jesus Christ, and dropping one half of this sealing or- 
dinance! How expressive is the prophecy. (Daniel vii. 25.) ‘And 
he shall speak great words against the Most High; and shall wear 
out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and 
laws.’ 

To the two sacraments instituted by Christ, your church has added 
no less than five new ones. One of these, viz: extreme unction, is 
thus proved by the Council of Trent, Sess. 14. chap. 1. ‘Truly the 
Holy unction of the sick, was instituted as it were, truly and proper- 
ly a sacrament of the New Testament, hinted at indeed, (insinuatum) 
by our Lord Christ in Mark, but recommended and preached to the 
faithful by James the Apostle and brother of our Lord.’ In the can- 
on just below, it is said to have been ‘instituted by Jesus Christ our 
Lord,’ but there is no attempt at other or better proof than that quot- 
ed before. A sacrament resting on an ‘as it were,’ and a ‘hinted at’ 
by Christ! And then the proof from James (5 chap. 14, 15, ver.) is 
perverted in the translation and use of it. ‘Anointing the sick,’ as 
mentioned by James, ‘raised him up,’ by miraculous power, to live 
again. The Lord who ‘raised him up,’ ‘forgave his sins.’ — But ex- 
treme unction, *as the name imports,. is a last act; and the translation 
from the Greek, in the decree of the Council, changes the meaning to 
this, ‘the Lord will ease him.’ But besides the fact that this institu- 
tion is utterly an innovation, there is about it a most singular dilemma, 

. which explains in part the cautious language of the decree. The 
Council had decreed (3d chap, of Sess. 14.) that ‘the proper minis- 
^®ters of this sacrament are either Bishops or Priests regularly ordain- 
ed by them.’ The same Council decreed that ‘in the last supper, our 
Lord appointed his Apostles priests of the New Testament.’ (Sess. 
22d. chap. 1st.) When the Apostles administered the unction to the 
sick, (Mark vi. 14.) they were then priests, or they were not priests. 
If they were pritwsts then, then they were not made priests at the last 
supper; and the Council in affirming they were, have erred: or if they 
were not priests then, or till the last supper, the unction, not being 
administered by priests, was no sacrament; and the Council in declar- 
ing it was a sacrament, has greatly erred. In either case, the Coun- 
cil has overthrown its own infallibility, and that of the church of 
Home. — Space alone is wanting to apply the same train of reasoning 
with equal effeettoshow that your church has corrupted the doctrines 
of Christ and his Apostles; so that many of those which you hold to 
be cardinal, are novelties and errors; such are Transubstantiation, 
Purgatory, Indulgences, the Pope’s supremacy, &c. which if my life 


CONTROVERSY. 


ns 

be spared, I hope in due time to make appear. So that it ia easier to 
show that our religion was before Luther, than yours before the Council 
of Trent. The inference is most conclusive, that since the church of 
Rome has altered and added to the sacraments of Christ, and corrupt- 
ed his doctrines, she is not unchangeable, that she has not been an ‘in- 
fallible teacher,’ and of course lacks that rule of faith, which Mr. 
Hughes himself says the true church must have ! 

111. The canon of Scripture, used by your church, is not the canon 
of the Christian church. As to the canonicity of all the books of the 
true Bible, you and we are agreed. It is true you have often in this 
discussion taken common ground with the Infidel, and attempted to 
perplex the proof of the authenticity of the Bible, in order to carry 
your system. We did not receive the Bible exclusively through the 
church of Rome. But allowing that we did, so did you. receive the 
Old Testament canon exclusively through the Jews. If then because 
we receive it from you, we ought to take your traditions with the text 
from you, so ought you, because you received the Old Testamentfrom 
the Jews, to take their traditions with the text from them. Again — 
though you get the Old Testament from the Jews, you arid many books 
to their canon, which they rejected. Why have you done this? If 
you may add what the Jews rejected, and yet hold apart in common 
with them as you do, may not the Christian church reject what you 
add, and yet hold a partin common with you ? This is what the 
Christian church has done. Now as to the Old Testament canon, it 
is conceded by your church that the Jews rejected, as not canonical, 
those books called ‘Apochryphal,’ which the Council of Trent decreed 
to be a part of the canon. Neither Christ nor his apostles ever found 
fault with the Jews for rejecting true Scriptures from the canon, or 
adding false books to it; though their false glosses and traditions were 
continually exposed by them. So far from this, Christ and his Apos- 
tles continually quoted from the present Old Testament; yet not a 
word from your additional books — Maccabees, Tobif, &c. &c. But 
they referred the Jews ‘to whom were committed the oracles of God,’ 
(Rom. iii. 2 ) to their own Scriptures — ‘search the Scriptures, for in 
them ye think ye have eternal life — and they are they which testify ofay 
me.’ (John v. 39.) ‘As it is written,’ ‘that it might be fulfilled,’ &c.' 
were the familiar and unqualified approbation of Jesus and his Apos- 
tles, to the Jewish Scriptures. And by comparing theSrth with the 
44th verse of Luke’s 24th chapter, you will find Christ saying that 
‘all the Scriptures’ were compromised in the ‘law of Moses, and the 
Prophets, and the Psalms.’ That was the common division of the 
whole Jewish Scriptures, without the Maccabees, Tobit, &c. &c. 

Again — these Apocryphal books, (according to the present canon of 
the Protestant churches) are excluded from the true canon by the ear- 
liest Christian writers. Justin Martyr, (A. j). 150.) quotes not one 
word from these Apocryphal books. The first catalogue of the Old 
'Testament Scriptures,* which we have after the days of the Apostles, 
is that of Melito, preserved by Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. Lib. v. c. 24.) 
This precisely accords with our canon, (excluding all the Apocryphal 
books,) except that after the ‘Proverbs of Solomon,’ he mentions ‘Wis- 
dom,’ which Rupin and Pineda, a Romanist, say, means the same with 


CON TftOV i'VftfSY. 


: 114 

! Proverbs, i. e. ‘Proverbs or Wisdom.’ — Athanasius, in his synopsis, 
gives our canon. Hilary, who was contemporary with Athanasius, 
rejects the ‘Wisdom of Sirach,’ ‘Judith,’ ‘Tobit,’ &c, Augustine calls 
the Jews, the ‘Librarians’ of the Christian church. The Council of 
Laodicea, (Can. 60th, See Labbeeusarid Cossarte on the sacred coun- 
' cils,) gives our canon and excludes the Apocrypha; — And so from age 
to age, down to Erasmus, we have aline of testimony against the 
canon decreed by the Council of Trent. It is true these Apocryphal 
books were considered by the early Christians as ecclesiastical histo- 
ries, which might be read with profit, bating their errors and extrava- 
gancies; but not inspired, and therefore not canonical; and it was by 
unperceived degrees, and through a series of ages, that the way was 
prepared for canonizing them at Trent, in the 16th century. Your 
church therefore hast hot the pure word of God. Instead of handing 
down the truth, it has exceedingly corrupted it, and that gf the foun- 
tain head. At this we need not be surprised, when we call to mind, 
that many of her doctrines rest for authority on these Apocryphal 
books. 

I3y the' same facts it appears that the Protestant canon is the true 
word of God, as held by his people from the beginning. When there- 
foreyou ask me how we know that such and such, books are canoni- 
cal, you may hereafter know that we do not learn it from the church 
of koine, which has corrupted the canon. And when you say, at the 
6th head of your last letter, ‘IIow does he, (the Protestant,) know that 
the'Book, (the Bible,) is in all respects now the same that it was, 
when it came from the hands of its inspired authors P Has it been cor- 
rectly translated r Has it been fairly copied, from one manuscript to 
another previous to printing?’ I reply, full well we know, that if this 
matter had been left to those hands that added the Apocryphal books 
to the word of God — that forged decretals, and erased the testimony 
of the Fathers — we might have trembled for the ark, and despaired of 
the word of God. But a gracious Providence, before the canon was 
corrupted by your church, and before it was in its power to shut in 
the Bible, had caused it to be translated into many languages — pub- 
lished in many countries — and preserved and transmitted it by so 
many hands, and channels, that we need look not at all to the church 
of Rome for this precious treasure. I regret that room is wanting to 
extend the argument for the true rule of faith. But I must, before I 
close, notice your most wanton admission, as to the evidences of the 
Saviour’s divinity in the sacred volume. In the 1st head of your let- 
ter, No. 9, you hold the following language : ‘Let him, (the Protestant 
reader,) take up the Bible, and read these words of ourbleessed Re- 
deemer, — ‘the Father and I are one’ — turn then to the other words — 
‘the Father is greater than I. ’That one passage is to be explained by 
the other is certain; but which shall take the preference of the other, 
the sacred writings do not determine.’ The obvious tendency of this 
statement is to sacrifice that eternal doctrine of the Christian scheme, 
or else arrive at it by the authority of your church. Indeed in so ma- 
ny words you admit, that ‘the sacred writings do not determine which 
shall take the preference of the other.’ — And will you say then that 
‘•the Bible contradicts itself, and that God cannot so speak to man in 


CONTROVERSY. 


Ilf 


his word, that he shall not contradict himself ? And that men arc ne- 
cessary to prevent God from contradictinghimself in his Revelations? 
And is Bellarmine so lucid, and so plain, that you insult me for dif- 
fering from you as to his meaning, and yet tell us that God cannot so 
speak as to be consistent or intelligent without the glosses of coun- 
cils and the meditation of Popes? Does language lose its sense, or 
thought its lustre, and point in the hands of the Holy Spirit alone?— 
Truly 1 know not whether it be most profane or puerile — to speak as 
you have done ! But there is this good from so great an evil, that all 
the world may in this see how it is that Rome and her sons light their 
candles to help the sun to shine. In fine, he who runs may reconcile 
the passages you cite, and so greatly slander. Without the full and 
proper meaning of both, Christ could not have been the Saviour of 
of the world. Yours, &c. 

John Breckinridgr, 


16 


CONTROVERSY. No. XI. 


RULE OF FAITH. 

Philadelphia , April 12, 1833. 

To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 

Rev. Sir ,—' The polite charge with which you begin your last letter, 
where you accuse me with having ‘departed from the dignity of a min- 
ister, and the decencies of a gentleman,’ is not in good keeping with 
that evangelical meekness, which is the loveliest, if not the most bril- 
liant, ornament of the ministerial character. I had stated indeed, that 
several of your assertions were ‘untrue;’ but I did not charge you 
with either ‘deliberate falsehood’ as you assert, or with a ‘want of ve- 
racity.’ On the contrary, I suggested that you had been deceived by 
following in the beaten path of calumny and misrepresentation, which 
has been trodden with impunity, by many of your predecessors in 
controversy. You seem to have imagined that I should receive your 
unfounded statements, with the same implicit confidence as the young 
lady in Baltimore, to whom you addressed the famous epistle publish- 
ed in the Christian Advocate of last August. But was this expecta- 
tion reasonable P 

I engaged in the contaoversy, neither as the enemy of Protestants, 
nor as the echo of their prejudices; but as the advocate of truth; and 
shall I not oppose assertions which are untrue, so often as you leave 
it in my power ? It is not my business to inquire who was guilty of 
the ‘deliberate falsehoods,’ and ‘want of veracity,’ which you are pleas- 
ed to consider as charged upon yourself. It is enough for me, that on 
each of the six heads enumerated in my last letter, you have asserted 
what is ‘untrue.’ To the arguments of that letter on the whole ques- 
tion, I refer the reader, and I appeal with confidence to his candour, to 
say whether in it, I have departed from either the ‘dignity of a min- 
ister,’ or the ‘decencies of a gentleman. If I found in your letters, 
assertions which are untrue, had I not a right, nay, was I not bound to 
expose them as such ? Which of us offended — you in making, — or I 
in detecting them ? When you insisted, did I not propose that a 
sworn interpreter of languages should decide between us ? Was this 
ungentlemanly ? If you were as convinced that those assertions are 
true, as I am that they are untrue, would you not have been glad of 
such an opportunity to have them cleared up ? Would not this course 
have been much more honourable to you and your cause, than that 
which you have adopted, by indulging a fretful pen, and imputing to 
me a ‘departure from the dignity of a minister, and the decencies of 
a gentleman.’ Did you dread the presence of a sworn interpreter ? 
Then, there must be cause for your timidity, This, I think, is the le- 
gitimate inference which your shrinking from so impartial a test, will 
warrant in the mind of the intelligent reader, no matter what maybe 
his creed. 

But you will say you have not shrunk from it — and refer to the fol- 
lowing passage for the evidence: ‘If you will add to the points you 


CONTROVERSY. 


nr 

mention, the. question about the Catechism of the Council of Trent 1 
* (certainly I will) ‘and the other catechisms’ (there has been no dis- 
pute about them) 'and about the Pope calling himself God;’ (the Pope 
never called himself God J also the question of the true sense of my 
extract from the Council of Lateran’ (with great pleasure) ‘and the 
interpretation of 2 Peter i. 20. — •’ (What! abandon the Protestant 
rule of faith ? A sworn interpreter to decide the meaning of Scrip- 
ture to ‘help the sun to shine l 9 ) ‘then I will promptly agree to such 
a reference, it being understood that the parties shall be neither Ro- 
man Catholics nor Presbyterians.’ The ‘party’ may be a Turk, or a 
Jevv; — provided he be a good Latin scholar, and an honest man. 1 am 
satisfied to leave the points on which we are at issue, to the decision 
of the Professor of languages in the University of Pennsylvania.— 
Will you agree to this reference? If so, advise me of it in your next 
letter. He is a Protestant clergyman, but he is a scholar, and a gen- 
tleman of literary, as well as moral integrity, and I want no more. 

With regard to the Westminster Confession of Faith from which 
I quoted, it is now on my table, and I invite any gentleman who may 
choose, to come and see, whether I have made even a mistake, in my 
quotation from it. It is the original, genuine, Westminster Confession 
of Faith.' — And any other book, containing either more or less, is not 
the original, genuine Westminster Confession. I considered it as the 
standard of Presbyterianism on the authority of Dr. Miller, who tells 
us that, by the act of the Synod of Philadelphia in 1729, called the 
‘Adopting Act,’ not only candidates but professed ministers were 
obliged to adopt it as such. Now it did not occur to me, that a book, 
which in 1729, ministers were ‘obliged’ to adopt as the summary of 
doctrines contained in the Scriptures, could so far have degenerated, 
as to become a spurious authority in 1833. Have the doctrines con- 
tained in the Scriptures clanged ? If not, why was the summary of 
them changed ? But without explaining this, you tell us, that some 
fifty years ago, the ‘offensive passages,’ which I have quoted, were 
‘solemnly rejected.’ What! Part of the summary of the doctrines 
contained in the Scriptures, ‘solemnly rejected!’ And rejected, why ? 
because they were ‘offensive !’ But may not the same authority adopt 
them again, as soon as political circumstances may make it conveni- 
ent to do so ? You say, ‘they are not, and never were, a part of your 
standards.’ But Dr. Miller asserts positively, the contrary; and you 
are both Presbyterians, who can, no doubt, reconcile the contradiction 
without the intervention of an interpreter. You are both teachers in 
Israel, and it is not for me to say which of you has stumbled in the 
testimony. 

That the Westminster Divines were ‘appointed by order of Par- 
liament to make a religion for the united kingdoms of Great Britain 
and Ireland,’ is an historical fact, at which I am surprised you should 
take exception. The Act of Parliament by which thejr were ‘appoint- 
ed,’ and the wages which they received from the public treasury, four 
shillings per diem, for their labour and expenses, are on permanent 
record. What, then, were they appointed and paid for, if it was not 
for ‘making a religion for the three Kingdoms ?’ 


118 


CONTROVERSY. 


So much then, for the Westminster Confession of Faith, and my 
quotations from it. As to your charges againt me for having garbled 
Tertallian, I shall do full justice to it in the sequel of this letter. In 
the mean time permit me to say that you have entirely, ('intentionally or 
otherwise,) violated your engagement, in departing from the subject of 
discussion, which is the rule of faith. You had frequently informed me 
in our preliminary arrangements, that your object was the investiga- 
tion of truth. It this then is your object, why do you shun that pro- 
cess by which truth and error may be distinguished ? Why do you 
discuss doctrines, before you have determined, or at least examined, 
the principle, by which true doctrines are to be tested ? The rule . of 
faith, and not the prejudices of our readers, is the tribunal at which 
doctrines must stand or fall. The rule of faith is a primary question; 
on this depends the solution of every other. The Protestant rule ot 
faith, stripped of its sophistry, is ‘every man’s opinion of the Bible’-—- 
which is a very different thing from the' Bible alone. Protestants, in 
following their own opinions, have taken it for granted, that they were 
following the ‘pure word of God,’ the ‘Bible alone’ — and their educa- 
tion, books, parents, and ministers have all conspired to embalm this 
delusion. In my last letter I exposed in six distinct arguments, the 
fallacy of the Protestant rule of faith, and instead of attempting to 
answer them, you indulge in a strain of invectives against the popes. 
They obliged kings to ‘hold their stirrup;’ and ‘kiss their feet.’ But 
every Protestant child knew this before. These are mere nursery 
tales — and to those who have been conversant with the most abusive 
productions against the Catholic religion, I am sure your letters do not 
convey a single new idea, much less an argument. And how will this 
meet the expectation of intelligent Protestants ? They look for ar- 
gument and reasoning — and you furnish them with the mere elements 
of prejudice. They ask for bread, and you give them a stone. What 
have you opposed to the arguments of my -fast letter ? Nothing that 
I can perceive, except assertion, invective, and misrepresentation. — 
Your first has reference to the Council of Lateral!. 

Catholics, as I have repeatedly stated, understand the distinction 
between doctrine, discipline, and ceremonies — and candid Protestants 
will not be at a loss to comprehend your reasoning for extending the in- 
fallibility of the church to every enactment recorded in her history. 
You have even coined infallibility for the 3d canon of the Council of 
Lateran, and put it into circulation in several paragraphs of your last 
letter — as genuine Catholic doctrine. It is however, decidedly spuri- 
ous. I again repeat, that the infallibility secured to the church by the 
word and promise of Jesus Christ, is claimed for the preservation and 
definition of those doctrines of faith and principles of morality of 
which Jesus Christ made the revelation of the world. But according 
to your misrepresentation, every thing done by a council or pope must 
be infallible ! The explanation of this canon given in my last letter, 
will satisfy the candid reader, that it was an arrangement entered in- 
to, by the common consent of the church and states, for a special pur- 
pose, and a temporary duration. It had no relation to sovereigns, but 
only to lords of fees, who, according to the system which then pre- 
vailed, were the possessors of frank-allodial property. It enacted 


CONTROVERSY. 


119 


that ‘if the lord of a fee, patronise tne Albigeases, he shall be excom- 
municated by the Metropolitan and the Bishops of the province; that 
it he does not amend within twelve months, his contumacy shall be 
denounced to the Pope who shall declare his vassals freed from their 
oaths of fealty, and shall expose his lands to be occupied by others.’ — 
Now this decision was based on a principle which is univeasally recog- 
nized. The conditions of every engagement are reciprocal — and 
if the lord of the fee was the first to violate the conditions on which 
his vassals swore fealty, were they not virtually absolved by the very 
fact, from the obligation of their oaths? But it was, you tell us, per- 
secution. Well, admitting that it was; is it for a discipline of John 
Knox, who held that it was not a privilege, but a duty to persecute 
‘unto the death;’ and of Beza, who wrote in defence of persecuting; 
and of John Calvin, who wrote and preached and practised this doc- 
trine, is it, l say, for the disciples of such men, to brand their neigh- 
bours with the charge of persecution? Why, Rev’d. Sir, do you not 
give me argument to refute on the rule of faith, instead of brandish- 
ing weapons which, if they cut at all, inflict the deeper wound on him 
who is the first to wield them ? Why not discuss the rule of faith, 
as your signature to our agreement bind you to do ? If we were treat- 
ing of persecution, [ should find it as ready to enlighten the public 
mind, with a faggot snatched from the pile which consumed Servetus, 
as you can, by a reference to the ‘decree’ of the Council of Lateran 
againist‘the little flock of kids,’ the Albigenses. But we should leave 
these criminations to the infidel, who makes them a pretext for sneer- 
ing at your religion as well as mine; and for the bigot, who is very rea- 
dy to point at the mote in his brother’s eye, but cannot see the beam 
in his own. 

Before I pass to the review of your letter, I must notice the injus- 
tice of charges which have been insinuated by yourself* and formally 
urged in several Protestant papers, not excepting even the sober- 
minded Church Register of this city. When I argue against the Pro- 
testant rule of faith, I am represented as arguing against the Bible ! 
Is this just? Is it honourable ? I defy the Church Register, and all 
the ministers in the United States, to point out one single passage 
that can even be tortured into an argument against the Bible, as a 
book of divinely inspired authority. When I point out and prove the 
destruction which the Protestant rule of faith, brings upon the Bible, 
I am represented as taking ‘common ground with the infidel, and as 
aiming a blow at the sacred volume itself!’ When I exposed bad lo-’ 
gic, it appears I insult the Bible ! No, sir; but 3 show that the Bible, 
under the Protestant rule of faith, is as defenceless as the desolate 
vine of Judah; the ‘bear from the woods,’ may ravish it. Is it not by 
that rule applied to the Bible, that some Protestants have robbed Jesus 
Christ of his Deity — that others, have annihilated by an opposite er- 
ror, the two other persons of the Holy Trinity ? Is it not by that rule 
of faith, that Calvin taught the blasphemous doctrine that God creat- 
ed some men under an unavoidable necessity to be damned for his 
glory? And when I prove that your rule of faith, gives identically 
the same sanction to all these doctrines — I am represented as arguing 
againt the Bible ! It is astonishing that pious and sincere Protestants 


120 


CONTROVERSY. 


do not shrink from the approbation of a principle, which makfts it 
lawful for one sect of Protestants to teach from the Bible that Christ 
is a mere creature; and for another to teach from the same Bible, that 
the Father and the Holy Spirit are only mere attributes of Christ, to 
express different operations. J^ow blend these two consequences of 
the Protestant rule of faith into one, and you see the belief of a su- 
preme being, destroyed by the combination;— and pure atheism ex- 
tracted, not from the Bible, but from the Protestant mode of interpre- 
tation ! According to one party, Christ is not God; according to the 
other, if Christ is not God, there is no God ! But you will say they 
interpret erroneously. I answer that they interpret strictly accord- 
ing to the rule of faith, by which you interpret. You say that the 
Bible alone is your religion; they say the same of theirs. You say 
that God speaks plainly in the Scriptures; they say that God speaks 
plainly in the Scriptures — and that by the authority of the Protestant 
rule of faith, and your own acknowledgment, they have as good a 
right to understand what God says in the Scriptures, as you have. — 
Y ou may say they pervert the "Scriptures, but they may retort the 
charge upon yourself. In a word, I defy you to use a single argument, 
which is not as good for them as it is for you. As a Catholic, I know, 
that the church never ceased to teach, since the days of Jesus Christ, 
the doctrines which both you and they have rejected — but for the rest 
I look upon them to be as sincere and as moral as Presbyterians are. 
They may have departed further from the doctrines of Christ; but the 
difference is in the the degree or error, and not in the principle by 
which it was engendered. 

Just pause, then, I pray you, and survey with a cool mind and a 
dispassionate eye, the field of Protestant Christianity. Consider the 
diversities of doctrine, and the multitude of sects which it presents, 
and ask yourself whether it is possible that this is the ‘one sheepfold’ 
of that church which Jesus Christ established on the earth. If your 
own brethren, who call themselves Presbyterians are charged with the 
impending crime of heresy, fora slight departure from your standards, 
how numerous must be the heresies of other denominations who con- 
demn your standards and the doctrines contained in them. Heresy, 
as you" know, is a crime, and every crime supposes moral culpability. 
But to what source will you trace the guilt of Protestant heresy, as 
you understand the word ? To the Bible ? That would be blasphe- 
my. To wilful perversion ? That is uncharitable and presumptuous, 
since God alone can judge in the sanctuary of men’s thoughts. 

Where then, is the error, of those that err most? — for you are 
among the first to proclaim that there is error of doctrine among Pro- 
testants, and consequently heresy, crime, and culpability. But does 
not the man of extreme heterodoxy do all that is required by the Pro- 
testant rule of faith? And if he does, how, according to your own prici- 
pies, can he be guilty of heresy? The only heresy is, that his opinion and 
your opinion about the meaning of the Bible, are different, one from the 
other. And if this be heresy, the number of the elect will be small 
indeed. But you will remember that the Protestant rule of faith de- 
stroys all possibility of determining who is right or who is wrong. Can 
thistthen be that ‘infallible rule,’ which Christ ‘established to guide 
us in matters of religion, and to determine disputes in his church?’ 


CONTROVERSY. 


121 


I mentioned in my last letter that Jesus Christ says of himself in 
one place, ‘the Father and I are one,’ in another, ‘the Father is greater 
than I’ — and asked you as a favour, to show me how, in the compari- 
son of these two passages, you could save the divinity of Jesus Christ 
from the destructive operation of the Protestant rule of faith in the 
hands of a Unitarian. This, you either could not, or would not un- 
dertake. But your mode of defending the Protestant rule of faith in 
presence of this test, is so curious that I cannot withhold it from the 
reader. I shall merely use a few parentheses as I proceed, which 
shall contain corrections of misrepresentation. My remark on the 
two passages above was, that one of them was to be explained by the 
other, but that the sacred writings do not determine which shall take 
the preference. Mr. Breckinridge clears up the difficulty in the fol- 
lowing manner : ‘The obvious tendency of this statement is to sacri- 
fice that eternal doctrine of the Christian scheme, (viz: the divinity 
of Christ,) or else arrive at it by the authority of your church. (The 
tendency, Rev. Sir, was to show the utter fallacy of the Protestant 
rule of faith.) Indeed in so many words you admit (I proclaim, ra- 
ther) that the sacred writings do not determine which shall take the 
preference of the other. And will you say then that the Bible con- 
tradicts itself, and that God cannot so speak to man in his word, that 
he shall not contradict himself. (I have not said any such thing ) — 
And that men are necessary to prevent God from contradicting him- 
self in his Revelations? (Not at all .) And is Bellarmine so lucid 
and so plain, that you insult me (I would not insult a child intention- 
ally — but when you misquote authors, it is my duty to correct you,) 
for differing from you, as to his meaning, and yet tell us that God can- 
not so speak to be consistent or intelligent (intelligible) without the 
glosses of councils and the meditation of Popes? (I never told you 
so.) Does language lose its sense, or thought its lustre and point in 
the hands of the Holy Spirit alone ? (I am arguing against the Pro- 
testant rule of faith, and not against the Holy Spirit.) Truly I know 
not whether it be most profane or puerile — to speak as you have done. 
(It would be both profane and puerile to speak as you have taken the 
the liberty to misrepresent.) But there is this good from so great an 
evil, that all the world may in this see how it is that Rome and her 
sons light their candles to help the sun to shine. (And yet, Protes- 
tant ministers enjoy larger emoluments for their ‘lighted candies’ than 
even the ‘sons of Rome.’) In fine, he who runs may reconcile the 
passages you cite, and so greatly slander. (I cannot see how I slan- 
dered them.) Without the full and proper meaning of both, Christ 
could not have been the Saviour of the world.’ What a strange mode 
of getting clear of a difficulty ! 

After this lucid exposition, the orthodox reader will have no diffi- 
culty in saving the divinity of Jesus Christ, from the destructive ope- 
ration of the Protestant rule of faith, in the hands of the Unitarian. 

You give your opinion at large on the canon of Scripture — and al- 
though I should respect your opinion, I cannot consider it of equal 
authority with the fact, that the Catholic canon had been established 
and recognised by the whole church, for more than a thousand years 
before the pretended Reformation. Luther put the Epistle to the He- 


3 is 


eONTROYttftSY. 


brews among the Apochryphal books. Calvin conferred a similar 
honour on the Apocalypse; and you or I have quite as good a right to 
strike a book from the canon, as either of them. The ‘canonizing’ 
of what you call the Apochryphal books, you tell us, took place at the 
Council of Trent ‘in the 16th century.’ Here you have committed 
a slight anachronism of about 1150 years. This event took place in 
the 4th century, A. J). 367, in the Council of Carthage. However, 
this is a mere trifle, and you will never think of it again. You were 
pleased in a former letter to tell us that none but the Apostles were 
inspired or infallible; and consistently with this assertion the two 
Gospels, and the Apostles’ Acts were uninspired! — Do you mean 
then, that these books shall be considered as Apochryphal P If not, 
why do you not recall the assertion alluded to, by which you sapped 
with all the influence of your signature, the foundation of their in 
spired authority ? What will Protestants think of their champion, 
who denies the inspiration of St. Mark and St. Luke, by the unqali- 
fied assertion, that none but the Apostles were inspired ? I respect- 
fully asked an explanation of this on a former occasion, but like the 
affair of ‘Usher’s authority among Romanists,’ you forgot it. It seems 
you have adopted the memorable words of a Roman governor — ‘what 
I have written, I have written.’ Thus you publish on the authority, 
as you say, of a ‘most respectable and responsible gentleman,’ that one 
of the Priests of this city, on a particular day, warned the people 
against reading this controversy. Now this statement is untrue. Will 
youthen give the name of your author ? Will you mention the 
church in which he was on that day? Will you do any thing to ex- 
plain this strange affair ? Will not the public consider yourself as the 
author of the statement, as long as you do not choose to say who the 
author is ? And how can you leave yourself exposed in this manner ? 

< Again, you insist that the Pope anathematized the Bible Society. 
This is untrue. You attempted on a former occasion to prove it, but 
your authority, as the reader may perceive by a reference to it, proved 
only that the Pope warned the faithful against your Bibles, and Bi- 
ble Societies, just as you warned the people against the Unitarian Bi- 
ble ! The motives assigned in the document, are such as every man 
of good sense will approve. IIow then, Rev. Sir, can you have the 
courage to repeat this unfounded assertion, when the document ad- 
duced by yourself, supplies, not the proof, but the refutation ! Truly 
the Protestant rule of faith must be a magnificent cause, when these 
are the means by which you are obliged to support it. These things 
may do very well in Frotestant pulpits; they may excite prejudice and 
uncharitableness towards the Catholics and their religion; but in a pub- 
lic discussion, when both sides have an equal hearing, you should be 
cautious in having recourse to them. 

The manner in which you refute my argument on the rule of faith 
is truly curious. I will give the heads of your demonstrations. 

I. ‘One of yotr methods of defending your church’s infallibility, 
is this, if the church be infallible, then the gates of hell have prevail- 
ed against them, and the Redeemer has forgotten his promise to his 
spouse.’ This argument you placed between inverted commas, to 
show that you had taken it from my letter. It is not mine, however; 


CONTROVERSY. 


123 


* — and its want of sense renders it very easy of refutation. My argu- 
ment was, that Christ promised that ‘the gates of hell should not pre- 
vail against his church’— -and that the infallibility of this promise, 
clearly proves the delusion of Protestantism, since the Reformation 
was founded on a supposition which clashes with the promise of 
Christ, viz: the supposition that the gates of hell had prevailed 
against the Church; — and that her doctrines required to be ‘reformed;’ 
that is, thrown back into the Bible, in order that all future genera- 
tions might enjdy the glorious uncertainty of private interpretation. 
My argument is this — if Christ did not fulfil his promise, what is to 
become of his infallibility ? But if he did fulfil it, then he was still 
with the Church, redeeming his promise, when Martin Luther, John 
Calvin, Henry VII. and Socinus undertook to make experiments in 
her doctrine, and to dignify the battle of their various and conflicting 
opinions, with the general name of ‘Reformation.’ 

II. ‘Allowing that Christ appointed an infallible tradition of doc- 
trine and a succession of infallible teachers, then the church that does 
not dispense his ordinances, and teach his doctrines, as he instituted 
and taught, cannot be a true church of Jesus Christ.’ Agreed. ‘Now 
I will prove that your church has corrupted the ordinances of Christ, 
and the doctrines of Christ.’ And how, Rev. Sir, do you prove this ? 
By taking it for granted that the doctrines which Protestants have 
rejected, are errors ? But since the Church had the promise that 
Jesus Christ would be with her ‘all days,’ how could she continue to 
teach these errors, unless Christ had abandoned her, and violated his 
promise? And if you prefer to say the promise was made to the 
Protestant Church, or churches, how comes it, that these churches 
were born after a mysterious gestation of some 1500 years from the 
period when Christ made these promises — which were to be fulfilled 
in all days, even to the consummation of the world ? If Protestant- 
ism be the Church of Christ, where was the Church of Christ before 
Martin Luther? 

III. ‘The canon of Scripture,’ you say, ‘used by your church, is 
not the canon of the Christian Church.’ Why, yes, it is the canon of 
what was the Christian church from the days of Christ, until the time 
when the gentlemen mentioned above, undertook to make Christian 
churches of their own. I defy you to show that the Christian church, 
previous to Luther, ever held a different canon. Your arguments are 
o-enerally very unfortunate, for the reason that they are generally in 
direct opposition to facts, and without facts, in a discussion of this 
kind, zeal, learning, and even logic, are absolutely useless. 

The question is the ‘rule of faith.’ In other words, the question is, 
how shall we know the doctrines, of which Jesus Christ said, ‘he that 
believeth not shall be condemned.’ Now the Protestant rule of faith 
reduces the doctrines of Jesus Christ to the sincere opinion of each 
individual in reading or hearing the Bible. If I have misrepresented 
the Protestant principle, I request you to give me the true practical 
definition. I think that every Christian who can and will reason con- 
sistently, will conclude with me, that Christ never did appoint so 
doubtful and precarious a principle of guidance. For the proof of 
this position, I refer the reader to the unanswered arguments of my 
last letter on this branch of the subject. 17 


124 


CONTROVERSY 


Reason tells us that since Christ made the belief of his doctrines 
necessary for salvation, he must have proved some infallible means 
for ascertaining what those doctrines are. This, my Rev. opponent 
has admitted. And yet, he does not attempt to show that the Bible, 
interpreted by each individual for himself, constitutes that infallible 
means. Why ? Because his arguments would be as good for the Uni- 
tarian, as for the Presbyterian,' — as good for the Universaiist, as for 
the Methodist, Baptist, or Episcopalian. If the Protestant rule of 
faith is right, then are all right. lr it is wrong, they are all equally 
bound, before their conscience and their God, to abandon it — for truth, 
next to God, is greater than all. 

Reason tells us, moreover, that no society can subsist; and history 
assures us, that no society ever did subsist, without the right of judg- 
ment, and the supreme power of decision, in cases of controversy 
among its members. Even in this country, where freedom is suppos- 
ed to be unbounded, the laws are not left to the arbitrary interpreta- 
tion of each private individual. Is it consistent then, with reason to 
suppose, as the Protestant rule of faith teaches, that the Son of God 
revealed a religion, — made the belief of it necessary to salvation, and 
yet left it at the discretion of every individual who can read, to de- 
termine, with all the certainty of opinion, what it is ? So far reason 
and history are directly against the Protestant rule of faith. But what 
says the written word of God P I will merely state its historical 
testimony. 

How were controversies decided under the Jewish dispensation ? 
Not by the private interpretation of the Bible ? Read ‘Parlip. ch. xix. 
v. 10 and 1 1. Every cause that shall come to you of your brethren, 
that dwell in their cities, between kindred and kindred, wheresoever 
there is question concerning the law, the commandment, the ceremo- 
nies, the justifications, show it to them, that they may not sin against 
the Lord, and that wrath may not come upon you and your brethren, 
and in so doing you shall not sin. And Amarias, the priest, your high 
priest, shall be chief in the things which regard God.’ This is the 
principle appointed by God, in the old law. Why should it be differ- 
ent in the new P Josephus testifies in like manner (lib. 2. contra Apio- 
nem) that the ‘High Priest sacrifices to God before the other Priests, 
guards the laws, and determines controversies.’ And even Herod, 
though a Jew, instead of interpreting the Scriptures as Protestants do, 
by private opinion, — ‘assembling together all the chief priests and 
scribes of the people, inquired of them were Christ should be born.’ 
Matt. xi. 4. 

Did the Saviour of men appoint a different principle whereby to 
‘determine disputes in his church ?’ Did he not say, ‘Hear the church; 
he that will not hear the church, let him be to thee, as a heathen and a 
publican?’ But how can we obey Jesus Christ, if instead of ‘hearing 
the church,’ we make our private explanation or opinion of the Bible, 
t>ur rule of faith ? Christ would not, could not enjoin on us to hear 
the church, under such a penalty, if the church were not an infallible 
authority. That is an infallible authority, I have already proved in 
my fifth letter, to which I refer the reader. Again, look at the usage 
and practice of the church from the earliest days of her history. — . 


CONTROVERSY. 


125 


Look at the decision of the Apostles, in the first council of Jerusa- 
lem. (Acts xv. 28.) ‘It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to 
us,’ &c. See again, (Euseb. lib. 5 cap. 23. etsequent) the controver- 
sy about the time of celebrating Easter, settled finally by the deci- 
sion of Pope Victor, A. D. 198. 

In 255,Novatian was condemned by the Roman council under Pope 
Cornelius, for teaching that sinners who had relapsed after baptism, 
could not be reconciled to God on their repentance, by the absolution 
of the church. (See Baronius on this year.) 

Sabellius was condemned in the Council of Alexandria, under Pope 
Sylvester, in the year 319, for teaching that there is but one person in 
God. Of the Council of Nice, held a few years afterwards, it is un- 
necessary for me to speak. 

Thus, then, it appears, that the Catholic rule of faith is found to be 
consistent with the light of reason and philosophy, with the experi- 
ence of history, with the testimonies of Revelation, with the practice 
of the Jewish and Christian Church; — whilst the Protestant principle 
is contradicted by them all. But why should I not refute tliat delu- 
sive principle, by a reference to the practice of Protestants them- 
selves. If God speaks so plainly in the Scripture that every man 
can understand what he says — why, I should like to know, do you, 
ministers, intrude yourselves between God and the people to help the 
Almighty to speak, and your hearers to understand ? With us a min- 
istry is consistent— with you it is a palpable contradiction. Why 
your Confessions of Faith and Articles ? But so it is, that those who 
depart from the rules of religion instituted by Christ, — those who quit 
the rock of truth, to build upon the quicksands of opinion, will ever 
be involved in the labyrinths of self-contradiction and inconsistency. 

I shall now conclude by giving the passage from Tertullian, which 
you accuse me of having garbled. But first I must correct your mis- 
tatement of my argument, in support of which, it was introduced. — 
You say, it was ‘intended to show that Rome was the seat of the true 
church, and the Pope the supreme head and successor of St. Peter.’ 
It was not, I assure you, Rev. Sir, intended for any such purpose; al- 
though it is, even for that, a very appropriate testimony. It was in- 
tended to show, that in Tertullian’s time, heretics alone had recourse 
to the rule of faith which Protestants now profess, to follow; — and 
that the Catholic Church possesses by prescription, in the succession 
of teaching and belief, the doetrines which were received from the 
Apostles. Tertullian was showing where the true doctrines of Christ 
existed, and how they could be distinguished from the errors, which 
private interpretation pretended to discover in the pure word of God, 
the Bible alone. Let me then give what you have quoted as the ‘un- 
garbled passage,’ and see whether it does not bear me out more strong- 
ly than the briefer extract which I had furnished. ‘Survey the Apos- 
tolic churches in which the very chairs of the Apostles still preside 
over the stations, in which their own letters are recited, uttering the 
voice, and representing the presence of each of them. Is Achaia 
nearest thee? Thou hast seen Corinth. If thou art not far from Ma- 
cedonia, thou hast the Philippians and Thessalonians. If thou canst 
go to Asia, thou hast Ephesus; but if thou art near Italy, thou hast 


126 


CONTROVERSY. 


Rome, whence to us also authority is near at hand.’ Now, if this does 
not prove against the Protestant rule of faith, I am at a loss to under- 
stand what proof is. How does he refute the heretics ? By the Bi- 
ble alone ? Not at all — but by comparing their doctrines with those 
held by the successors of teaching in the Apostolic churches — which 
were numerous in his time. He refutes heresy by the argument of 
prescription — by showing that in the Christian Church, truth existed 
before the heresy was broached, and that the first or oldest doctrines 
are the true doctrines. In reference to the Church of Rome, read the 
conclusion of the chapter from which you have quoted — Let Protest- 
ants reflect upon it : ‘heresies were not of that church; because they 
went out from her, and have since their apostacy turned all the 
malice of their united efforts against her . 5 One would suppose that 
in this short sentence, Tertullian was the historian, or prophet of the 
calumnies that have been heaped on the church of Rome, for the last 
three hundred years. But no: he v/as the historian of his own times, 
for the adversaries of the church have always been distinguished by 
the same characteristics. 

Let me entreat you, in conclusion, not to consider me as intending to 
to insult you, whenever I find it necessary correct the unfounded state- 
ments of your letters; and to name, or authorize your friend to agree 
with me on the selection of a sworn interpreter, to decide the ques- 
tions on which we are at issue, as I wish the decision to be published 
before the meeting of the General Assembly. Y ours, very respectful- 
ly, Jno. Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY No. XII. 


RULE OF FAITH. 

Philadelphia , Jlpril 18, 1853. 

To the Rev. John Hughes. 

Sir t — It is difficult for me to express to you my surprise at the per- 
tinacity with which you reiterate the charge of ‘intolerance’ against 
the Presbyterian church. After the statement of facts made in my last 
letter, ignorance can no longer be your apology and the plea of inad- 
vertence, which we were ready to make for you in our minds, is si- 
lenced by your assurance, that ‘you have not made even a mistake in 
quoting.’ You insist that it is the original, genuine Westminster 
Confession of Faith, and any other book, containing either more or 
less, is not the original, genuine Westminster Confession.’ But the 
question, was whether this was the Confession of Faith of .the Presby- 
terian Church under the care of the General Assembly? Mr. Hughes 
had said, (Letter 7th,) ‘The standard of Presbyterianism in the Unit- 
ed States of America, and in the 19th century, makes it a sin against 
the second commandment to tolerate a false religion;’ and he had 
identified it with our church, by a direct reference to its supreme ju- 
dicatory, viz: ‘It is true the General Assembly has not told us what 
religion it regards as false.’ And to show us that he did not quote 
from an antiquated copy, or a foreign edition, (which might have been 
the standard of the Scotch Church, or of some other church) he in- 
formed us that it was published by Towar & Ilogan, in this city, 
in 1829 ! 

In vain do we tell him that our church does not adopt the West- 
minster Confession on the subject of ‘Intolerance;’ that Towar & Ho- 
gan printed no edition of our standards in 1829; that the Synod of 
1729 was not the ‘General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church,’ 
and that the very union which incorporated that and other parts of 
our church into one body was based upon the principles of equal 
rights and universal toleration. Having then so grossly misrepresent- 
ed the public standards of the Presbyterian Church; having asserted 
that something is found in her accredited book, not one word of which, 
as every well-informed person knows, is contained in it; and having 
been convicted of this misrepresentation, you have the hardihood to 
deny that you have done our church the smallest injustice! I had 
really expected from you a different course : if not from a love of 
justice and truth, at least from a regard to your own reputation ! Dr. 
Miller’s repose will hardly be disturbed by your efforts to put his 
‘Letters to Presbyterians’ at issue with our standards. You have cer- 
tainly been in good company while writing at his side, and as his 
friend, I feel quite willing to leave his defence to be gathered from the 
expressive contrast between your letters and his, as they have simul- 
taneously appeared in the columns of the Presbyterian. I close my 
notice of this subject, by noting it as one of the items of the propos- 
ed reference. 


128 


CONTROVERSY. 


I have been much struck (and not I alone) with your summary me- 
thod of replying to my arguments. You call with great confidence 
for proof, that the Catechism of the Council of Trent ‘took liberties’ 
with the commandment touching the making and worshiping of ima- 
ges.’ When I adduced the proof, you drop the subject. You call on 
me to vouch for the faithfulness of the translation and the continuity 
of the sense of the long extract from the Council of 4th Lateran, 
about burning heretics. I met your call; and exposed your ‘feudal’ 
defence of that atrocious act — you drop the subject. 

Again, in reply to a whole series of facts and reasonings on subject 
after subject in dispute, you say ‘I refer the reader to my fifth letter, 
or some other letter, lo ! there is no answer there ! Your letters aid 
each other in this respect, like the idle boys who combined to deceive 
their master: ‘Jack,’ said he to one of them, ‘what are you doing ?’ 
‘I am helping Dick, Sir. ‘Dick, what are you doing?’ ‘Nothing, Sir.’ 
Such defence is almost as easy and as victorious as the colloquies got 
up in Kentucky by the Bishop of Bairdstown, in which two strolling 
priests, in Thespian style, personated the Romanist and the Protest- 
ant. The Protestant fought long, and died hard; but was always 
beaten ! 

I had at least supposed that you would defend the sacramnts of 
your church. But in reply to what has been said as to her abuse of 
the eucharist, and her promotion of extreme unction into a sacrament, 
you say not a word. 1 have called until I am weary for your reply, 
as to the admission of the Rev. Mr. M‘Guire. As the whole contro- 
versy turns on this point, I will present it once more; and your si- 
lence, if persisted in, must be construed, even by your friends, into a 
confession, that you cannot meet it. The admission is this, ‘that the 
Catholic has only to exercise his private judgment upon the Scripture 
proofs of the authority of the church: that once established, the Catho- 
lic is enabled to make an act of faith upon divine authority.’ Now is 
this so, or is it not ? 

I have still further to say, that in ail this discussion, the obligation 
of proof is on your side. Your church claims to be the only true 
church, and asserts that out of her there is no salvation. Here is 
an exclusi veness so great and so peculiar, and so unlike to all other 
churches, that the whole world has a right to claim the proof, or the 
surrender of it. Your rule of faith, contrary to all other churches, 
claims the authority to decide, 1. What is Scripture ? 2. What that 
Scripture means ?’ This is a most unusual, a super-human claim; es- 
pecially by one who is a party in all these questions. If you have 
these awful trusts committed to you, surely you ought to make out 
your title to them very clearly, before we can commit our consciences 
implicity to your lordly sway; and if you have these powers from 
God, the proof is very clear. Moses and Aaron, the ancient Proph- 
ets, the Apostles, and the Lord of all, made out their commissions ve- 
ry clearly, by such proofs as appealed to the outer senses as well as 
to the reason and conscience of men. 

It is for this reason, you ought to have begun with your own rule of 
faith. But claiming to be Apostolical, you come to us, and say, I am 
of the only tru« church; your church is false, prove that yours is not 


CONTROVERSY. 


129 


false. We answer, prove to us that you are what you say, and we 
will believe you. Hut you decline. Suppose Jesus had said to the 
Jews, ‘I am the true Messiah; prove to me that I am not.’ Did he 
not proceed to prove it by such evidence as no man could resist ? As 
you come in his name, and to the exclusion of all others, call your- 
selves the successors of his Apostles, why do you not follow his ex- 
ample? And when we say we will prove you false, while you cannot 
prove yourselves true, you cry out, that we ought to defend our own 
rule ! Surely, then, until your rule is proved, and your claims are 
forfeited by proper evidence, our rule, the usual, universal, good old 
rule, stands, and withstands, and will still stand. 

Your last letter is so jejune, that I really see scarcely a thought in 
the shape of an argument, which is not a ‘familiar acquaintance,’ that 
has appeared and re-appeared, until it has at least this claim to anti- 
quity, that it has lost all novelty. Allow me, then, to pass to some 
additional considerations. 

You have, with great frequency and confidence, charged the Pro- 
testant rule of faith, i. e. ‘The Holy Ghost, speaking in the Bible,’ 
with producing Unitarianism and every species of heresy. Even as 
recently as the close of your letter. No. 9, you venture to assert that 
no one can, without your infallible church’s guidance, decide whether 
Jesus Christ was equal to God the Father or not. 

I. For the reviving of your own recollection, let me give you the 
following coincidences. Rev. Mr. Hughes’ Letter No. 9. ‘Let him, 
(the Protestant reader,) take up the Bible and read these words of 
our blessed Redeemer, ‘the Father and l are one’ — turn then to the 
other words — ‘the Father is greater than 1.’ That one passage is to 
be explained by the other, is certain; but which shall take the prefer- 
ence of the other, the sacred writings do not determine.’ Unitarians 
are more consistent than yourself, for they admit that the word of 
God (as well as Bellarmine) has some meaning, and is it not depend- 
ent on the Roman Church to preserve it from contradiction and ab- 
surdity. But you agree with them in this respect, that you say Christ’s 
divinity cannot be proved from the Bible, without infallible interpre- 
tation; and they say it cannot be proved at all. It is true you would 
by authority, make the Bible mean what you say its obvious sense 
does not teach. But who ever heard of authority given to words a 
sense contrary to their true meaning. It is absurd: therefore if you 
are right, so are they, by your own concession; and in the end you 
reach the same fearful issue with them. It is a cardinal point with 
Unitarians that ‘That the doctrine of a Trinity in the Godhead is not 
taught in the word of God.’ Bale, a Roman Catholic writer, asks 
(see Protestant, Vol.4. page 358.) .where is it plainly written, that 
there are three persons in the Trinity?’ Tract 1. ques. 9. Here both 
parties agree that the unaided Bible does not prove the doctrine of 
the Trinity. The Unitarian asks for a new revelation before he will 
believe it. The Romanist ask for a new and superadded authority 
before he will receive it. But as for the Bible alone they agree that 
the doctrine is not to be looked for in it. 

Rev’d. Mr. Hughes’ Letter No. 3. ‘It is a fact, that Christ never 
appointed this rule; — because he never wrote any part of the Old or 


130 


CONTROVERSY. 


New Testament himself ; — he never commanded any part to be writ- 
ten by his Apostles.’ 

Unitarians take precisely the same ground; they contend that the 
sacred penmen were credible historians, who wrote as circumstances 
required, and according to the dictates of their own judgment, but 
not under the impulse of inspiration. Their object is to prove, 
that the word of God is not an infallible book. The object of Mr. 
Hughes is to show, that it is not sufficient of itself. Unitarians make 
inspiration unnecessary. Mr. Hughes makes it useless and even in- 
jurious, without the aid of the Church of Rome. They agree won- 
derfully in this, that they dishonour and degrade the inspired word 
of God. 

Bellarmine, and indeed Romanists at large, are accustomed to af- 
firm that many of the canonical books have perished. Bellarmine 
says expressly, (book the 4th, chap. 4. on the unwritten word of God,) 
‘Many books truly sacred and canonical have perished.’ ‘Multi libri 
vere sacri et canonici, perierunt,’ Socinus, Valkelius and others af- 
firm the same, viz: ‘It is understood that many of the books of the Old 
Testament have perished.’ The Romanist would drive you in this 
way to the traditions and teaching of his infallible church. The Uni- 
tarian would reduce you by the irreparable defect of the canon to na- 
tural religion, and uninspired records. But is it not a fact which stares 
us in the face, that they entirely agreed to cripple and lay in the dust 
the Bible alone as a sufficient rule of faith ? 

In fine, when Dr. Priestly says the Apostles reasoned ‘inconclusive- 
ly,’ and that Moses gives ‘a lame account of the creation,’ wherein 
does he differ from Mr. Hughes, who says, letter No. S, 6th head, 
‘Does the Bible determine the dispute between you and the Unitari- 
an on the divinity of Jesus Christ? Since the beginning of Christi- 
anity until the present hour no dispute has been determined by that 
rule, — the Bible alone?’ I hope, therefore, that your empty clamour 
about the tendency of the Protestant rule of faith to make Unitarians 
will cease until you have statisfied the public on the above evidences; 
and that henceforth you will bear in mind, that because Unitarians and 
we use the same Bible we do not hold the same doctrines. Our rule, 
like the sun of our system, is common property. It is your rule, if 
you will use it. It is our rule, it is the universal and only rule, of all 
men, and you had as well attempt to put your feeble shoulder to the 
burning orbit of the luminary in the heavens, and heave it back into 
the night, as to stop tha freedom of inquiry, or arrest the ‘free course 
of the word of God.’ 

II. Much has been said during this discussion on the subject of the 
true canon. In my first letter, 1 called upon you to defend the un- 
heard of violence done to the word of God by your church, in ‘ad- 
ding’ to it a large volume of spurious books called ‘Apochryphal.’— - 
In my last letter this difficulty was pressed upon you at some length. 
It was shown that the Jews, the Lord Jesus and his Apostles, the 
early Fathers, the Council of Laodicea, and the ancient church at 
large, rejected these books — and that our present canon coincides with 
that of Christian antiquity. You have not attempted to account for 


CONTROVERSY. 


131 


the absence of these spurious books from the canon forgo many ages, 
nor to meet the objections made in my letter No. 1, 6th head. 

While you thus elude the force of truth and fact, as to the Old 
Testament, you have striven repeatedly to perplex the question about 
the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament. The ar- 
guments which you urge against the Protestants are in singular resem- , 
biance to those used by infidels against Christianity itself ; and ycthe 
seem to have proceeded upon the plan of making Romanists if->y ask. 
can, or infidels if you must. Thus in the 9th letter, 4th head, you 
say, ‘you cannot be ignorant that several books, which in the first ages 
laid claim to inspired authority, are notin the canon. Of these I may 
name a few — the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or according to > 
the Apostles — the memoirs of the Apostles — quoted frequently byo- 
Justin Martyr, and different tracts under the names of Peter, Paul, 
Matthias and other Apostles.’ And in the same letter, 6th head, you 
write as follows: ‘IIow does he (the Protestant) know, that the book, 
(the Bible,) is in all respects now the same tjiat it was when it came 
from the hands of inspired authors? Has it been correctly translat- 
ed ? Has it been fairly copied, from one manuscript to another pre- 
vious to printing ?’ 

I have often been curious to know how you would meet an infidel 
or a Pagan on this question. Beilarmine was rightly compared by 
the writer of a former day, to the amphibious bird in the fable, which 
was sometimes a bird and and sometimes a fish. He was a bird when 
the king of fishes exacted a tribute; and a fish when the king of birds 
exacted it. Beilarmine speaks like a Protestant when he reasons for 
the Bible as the word of God against the Libertines, and others. He 
refers in proof, to such, evidence as this: ‘At sacris Scripturis, quee 
Propheticis et Apostolicis literis continentur, nihil est notius, nihil 
certius, ut stultissimum esse necesse sit, qui illis fidem esse habendam 
neget. Notissimas enim esse testis est orbis Christianus, et consen- 
sio omnium gentium, aquid quas multis jam seculis summam semper 
auctoritatem obtinuerunt: certissimas autein atque verissimas esse, 
nec humana inventa, sed oracula divina continere.’ Bellarm. De 
Verbo Dei, lib. 1. cap. II. 

‘Nothing is better known, nothing more certain than the sacred 
Scriptures which are contained in the Prophetical and Apostolical 
writings, — insomuch that he who refuses to believe in them is to be 
esteemed a fool. For the whole Christian world bears testimony to 
their notoriety, as well as the consent of all the nations among whom 
for so many ages their supreme authority has been acknowledged; 
and they are most certain and true, comprising no human inventions, 
but the oracles of God.’ 

He proceeds to deduce proof. 1. From the truth of Prophecy. 2. 
From the wonderful divine harmony of the sacred writers, though 
of so many different ages, places, occasions, languages, &c. 3. From 
the interposition of divine Providence for the preservation of the 
Scriptures. 4. From the book itself ; which claims inspiration. 5. 
From the testimony of miracles. 

Now will this reasoning lose any of its force when turned against 
yourself? If not, admit it, or else answer it. But let me go on to 


CONTKOVBKSY. 


132 

s ay to jou once more, that we do not, and never did, depend on the 
Church of Rome for the proof, or the preservation of the word of God; 
and while you drop apologies to the Infidel, remember that there is a 
high road of evidence through which the Bible has passed unhurt, from 
God to the present generation, amidst the assaults of open enemies 
i-’d pretended friends. 

thai would require a volume, (while I have room only for a few para- 
Ilughe do justice to this subject. But let me refer the reader to 
j d a crowd of other writers, who have reduced to order and 

fortitk. with unrivalled power the evidence of the genuineness and 
authenticity of our Bible, against the assaults of infidelity, and the 
Church of Rome. In the mean time, let me say a few words, that 

’•eis no evidence, that any of the spurious books you name existed 
>e first century of the Christian era; that they were excluded from 
toe churches, and from the catalogues of the canonical books: were 
not noticed by friends or foes in discussions about Christian doctrines: 
and besides the silence of. the early ages, they were rejected and ‘re- 
probated with a consent nearly universal by the writers of succeed- 
ing ages.’ You will hardly deny these facts; or that the converse of 
all this is true of our present canon. And finally, for all this proof, 
we make no more reference to the authority of the Church of Rome, 
than we do to the authority of the Ceesars or of the great Mogul. It 
is such proof as does not depend upon her testimony as a church, or 
her authority as a judge of controversies. Indeed it is a very singu- 
lar fact, that the church of Rome, as late as the fourth century, re- 
jected Paul’3 Epistle to the Hebrews ! ‘Aqud Romanos usque hodie, 
quasi Pauli Apostoli non harbetur — Jerome (A. D. 345 to 420 De vi- 
ris. Ulus.) Among the Romans, even at this day, it is not held to be 
the apostle Paul’s.’ If this mean the church of Rome locally, then 
where is her supremacy ? If universally, then where is her infallibi- 
lity ? one must fall. 

III. I come next to your argument in defence of your church as a 
judge of controversies. Here as usual, you make no attempt to prove 
that the church of Rome is the true church of Jesus Christ. This you 
take for granted. But passing this in silence, you ask, ‘How were 
controversies decided under the Jewish dispensation r’ 

This is a very important question, and, as will appear below, of 
most unhappy omen to the church of Rome. You cite (Paralipomena) 
g Chron. chap. 19 verses 9, 10. You omit the 8th, which is as follows: 
•Moreover, did Jehoshaphat set for judgment, &c-’ Observe then, that 
was a court of the king’s ordering. 

ou also omit the latter part of the 11th verses, viz:— ‘And also 
ZeLediah the son of Ishmael shall be chief in teethings which regard 
the King.’ (I quote as you have done from the Vulgate.) This verse 
shov s that there were two Presidents of this court, — one for the ec- 
clesiastical causes, ‘the things which regard God.’ the other for the 
civil, ‘for all the things regarding the King.’ But we suppose the 
resemblance is near enough, especially as you have sometimes had 
three Popes; — and as the councils were sometimes convoked by the 
Emperors. 

And now as to the argument You say, ‘This i« the principle ap- 


CONTROVERSY. 


ns 

pointed by God In the old law; why should it be different in the new t 0 
‘Even Herod, though a Jew, instead of interpreting the Scripture as 
Protestants do, by private opinion — assembling together all the chief 
priests and scribes of the people, inquired of them where Christ should 
be born.’ Matth. xi. 4. Your reasoning, then, is this, that the high priest 
and the sanhedrim were the judges of controversy under the old lav/; 
—and of course by the same principle, the Pope and council are the 
judges of controversy under the new. This you assert when you ask, 
‘did the Saviour of men appoint a different principle whereby to de- 
termine disputes in his church ?’ And again, this judge of contro- 
versy was unlimited and infallible. For Josephus as quoted by you, 
tells us, ‘the High Priest guards the law and determines controversies.’ 
The High Priest, then, and the Council were the judges of contro- 
versy, and from their decision which was final and infallible, there 
was no appeal. Letyis applydhe reasoning to the condemnation of 
Jesus Christ. 

1. Jesus was arrested by" 1 order 'of the ‘high priests, scribes, and 
elders,’ Mark xiv. 43: ‘And immediately, while he yet spake, 
cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude, 
with sword9 and staves, from the chief priests, and the scribes, and the 
elders,’ 

2. When arrested he'was" brought directly before the regular tri- 
bunal. Mark xiv. 53: ‘And they led Jesus away to the high priest: 
and with him were^ assembled all the chief priests, and tne elders, 
and the scribes.’ 

3. They proceeded to try him, and condemned him for pretended 
‘Heresy’ — ‘as Judges of Controversy,’ and they charged him ‘with 
blasphemy,’ and condemned him to die ! Mark xiv. 60 — 64: ‘And the 
high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest 
thou nothing ? what is it which these witness against thee ? But he 
held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked 
him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the 
right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the 
high priest rent his clothes and saith, What need we any further wit- 
nesses ? Ye have heard the blasphemy, what think ye ? And they 
all condemned him to be guilty of death.’ 

4. They then handed him over to the civil power. Mark xv. 1 : — 
‘And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation 
with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, and bound Jesus, 
and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.’ 

5. And the civil power ordered him to be crucified, and Pilate exe- 
cuted their will though he pronounced Jesus an innocent man; and he 
died for his doctrines. No other charges was brought against him.— 
Matt, xxvii. 24 — 26: ‘When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, 
but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his 
hand before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this 
just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said. 
His blood be on us, and on our children. Then released he Barabbai 
unio them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be 
erueified.’ 


134 


CONTROVERSY. 


Never did the universe witness so bloody a drama! Never did a 
council commit a deed so atrocious! But here was the ‘judge of con- 
troversies,’ the high priest, the Pope’s original, — here the regular 
council, and sitting in judgment ‘on doctrine,’ not as a ‘feudal,’ or 
civil, but ‘ecclesiastical court.’ Then were they fallible or infallible? 
Did they decide right or wrong? Such is your reasoning, that you 
are bound by consistency to defend their acts, — or by candour, to say 
that a council though regularly convened, and general, with the Pope 
presiding, may err, in matters of doctrine and morals! 

IV. The Scripture, according to the ancient Fathers, is the sole 
judge of controversies and interpreter of itself. 

It was Augustin who laid down this great radical principle, ‘there 
a man is said to be judge where he has power and authority to cor- 
rect.’ On this principle your church has actually proceeded, in as- 
suming to be judge of controversies, for she has added a large volume 
to the word of God, fas we proved in letter No. IX.;) and though a 
party in the controversy, she assumes to judge with authority in her 
own cause. 

Optatus, A. D. 370, held the following language: ‘You say it is 
lawful, we say it is not lawful; the people’s souls do doubt and Ma- 
yer, let none believe you nor us, we are all contending parties, judges 
must be sought for: if Christians, they cannot be given on both 
sides, (for truth is hindered by affections.) A judge without must be 
sought for; if a Pagan, he cannot know the Christian mysteries; if 
a Jew, he is an enemy to Christian Baptism: no judgment therefore 
of this matter can be found on earth; a Judge in heaven must be 
sought for. But why knock we at heaven, when we have the Testa- 
ment of Christ in the Gospel.’ (De ccelo queerendus est Judex, sed 
ut quid pulsamus ad ccelum habemus in Evangelic Testamentum. 
Opt. lib. 5 contr. Parmen. Donat.) The above is on the question of 
re-baptizing, in his discussion with ‘Heretics.’ 

Chrysostom, who was ordained Bishop of Constantinople, A. D. 
398, makes the following very striking and appropriate comments 
upon the subject at issue: ‘JLet us follow the scope of the Holy 
Scripture in interpreting itself: when it teaches some hard thing, it 
expoundeth itself, and suftereth not the hearer to err. Let us not 
fear, therefore, to put ourselves with full sail into the sea of ‘Scrip- 
tures,’ because we shall be sure to find the word of God for our pilot, 
(Chrys. Horn. 13, in Gen. Chrys. in 1 Thes. Horn. 7.) The same 
author prompts a Gentile to the use of the word of God in the fol- 
lowing language: ‘When thou buyest a garment, though thou have 
no skill in weaving, yet thou sayest not I cannot buy it, they will de- 
ceive me: but dost use all means to learn how to know it: do, there- 
fore, those things which are to be done, seek all those things of God, 
and He altogether will reveal it unto thee.’ (Idem. Homit. 33. in 
Act.) 

Athanasius, who flourished about the year 335, speaking of the 
Bible, says: ‘For the holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are of 
themselves sufficient for the discovery of the truth.’ (Speech against 
the Gentiles.) It is very important here to observe, that this Fath'er f 
in his catalogue of the books of Scripture, gives precisely our canon 


CONTROVERSY. 


135 


excluding from the inspired word the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, 
Tobias, &c. &c. From this it appears, ]. That ours is the true canon, 
while Roman Catholics have corrupted the Word of God, by the ad- 
dition of writings called by Athanasius ‘not canonical.’ 2. That this 
our very canon is a sufficient rule for the discovery of divine truth. 

I might cite many other testimonies from the Fathers: but these may 
serve as specimens in proof of the fact, that they held the Protestant 
rule ot faith. It is true ‘The Fathers’ were not unanimous, neither 
were they inerrable. The Roman Catholic rule of faith, as we have 
elsewhere shown, binds its followers ‘never to take or interpret them 
(the sacred Scriptures) otherwise than according to the unanimous 
consent of the Fathers.’ The defect of such unanimity utterly ex- 
plodes the rule which rests upon it. But that the Protestant rule was 
known, owned, practised from the earliest ages, is sufficiently evident 
from the quotations already adduced; and as the pruning-knife of Pa- 
pal expurgation has been applied even to these Fathers, we may well 
suppose that what is left in the form of proof for our own rule is in- 
disputable authority with Roman Catholics. In a word, it appears ac- 
cording to testimony which you have admitted to be authentic, that 
the word of God is the sole Judge of controversy, and its own inter- 
preter. 

As to the famous passage from Tertullian, I would ask you, with 
all due respect and candour, why did you not cite the passage in the 
first instance, as you have cited it at last? You charge me with in- 
justice as to the passage from Ballarmine on the power of the Pope. 
But here the whole sense of the passage is altered, and the very shape 
of it changed. Yet even upon your own admission, Tertullian makes 
apostolical churches and many apostolical chair. And these church- 
es and these chairs were of equal authority, one with another; and to 
be consulted indifferently according to their vicinity to the inquirer. 
And also, ‘the letters of the apostles, uttering their voice and repre- 
senting the presence of each of them, are recited’ as supreme autho- 
rity. Then, on your own reasoning, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, 
and Corinth, as well as Rome, were apostolical seats. And ‘the writ- 
ings of the apostles,’ and not a living infallible judge ‘was the infalli- 
ble rule of faith established by Christ to guide us in matters of reli- 
gion for the purpose of determining disputes in the Church of Christ.’ 

Your attempt to pervert my argument, on the apostolical succes- 
sion, shows the desperation of a defence, which was feeling for a 
foundation, and could find none. You say, in letter No. 9, ‘If the 
Apostles alone were inspired and infallible, as you assert, then what 
is to become of the Gospels of St. Luke and St. Mark, what is to be- 
come of the Acts of the Apostles P It is well known that the authors 
of these books were not Apostles, and had not seen the Lord.’ Here 
you but resort to the old practice of injuring the canon, rather than 
spare the Protestant. It is known to yourself, that Mark’s writings 
received the sanction of Peter, and Luke’s of Paul. The Apostle 
Paul says, in his Epistle, ‘Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ and Ti- 
motheus our brother.’ — ‘Paul called to be an Apostle and Sosthenes 
our brother.’ The writings were theirs, whether penned by them- 
selves, or others under their eye.’ 


CONTROVERSY. 


136 

And new as to the reference to a sworn interpreter, you contradict 
yourself and misrepresent me in two successive paragraphs, by saying 
m the first, ‘You shrink from so impartial a test.’ ‘Did you dread the 
presence of a sworn interpreter?’ and then own that, in my last let- 
ter, I agree to such a reference. 

On this whole subject I would say, 1. By this very proposal you 
abandon the principle on which you heretofore proceed; which is, that 
a fall ible’interpreter cannot be authority. 2. While the opinions of 
learned and good men, shall always have great weight with me, yet 
my principles forbid me to commit the last decision to any human tri- 
bunal. 3. We are at issue about translations, and about facts. For 
example, you deny that your church forbids the reading of the Scrip- 
tures. I affirm it. So of several other facts, some clothed in a dead 
language, and some not. In the reference proposed, I wish to settle 
each class of questions so far as a reference can do it 4. I wish the 
fair translation of several passages of Scripture, particularly that 
mentioned in my last letter, that the same may be spread out before 
the public. 5. With these statements, I do most cordially agree to 
the reference itself, and to the Rev. Dr. Wylie, the respected Profes- 
sors of Languages, named by you as our referee; and 1 agree to make 
him a standing referee, so that whenever you please, he may be call- 
ed on for this purpose. As soon as convenient, I am prepared through 
a friend to proceed in this reference. 

A gentleman, who knew the feelings of a gentleman, should have 
understood, without explanation, the delicate nature of my situation 
in regard to the name of my informant, as to ‘the warning against 
reading the controversy.’ I did not proceed in this matter without a 
responsible name; and even then, knowing the defects of tradition, I 
asked it of you as a question, whether my informant was mistaken, 
and left it open for correction. I have now the name before me, and 
the permission to make it public, if requested by the Bishop. If he 
demand it, therefore, it shall be given. 

I wish to say, in conclusion, that our rules, which you profess great- 
ly to respect, require us to pass, at some time, and I think the public 
expects us to pass, soon, to other topics. I give you notice, therefore, 
that I shall avail myself very soon, if my life is spared, of this pri- 
vilege, reserving the right to respond to your arguments if you choose 
to linger on the threshold. Y ours, &c. 

John Breckinridge. 


CONTROVERSY* NO. XISI 


RULE OF FAITH. 

Philadelphia , April , 26, 1833. 
To tiie Rev. John Breckinridge. 

Rev. Sir . — As my reference to the Westminster Confession of 
Faith, touching the power and duty of magistrates, seems to have 
given you some pain, I shall commence by saying all I have to say 
on that subject. This is the more necessary, as you recall the 
plea of “ignorance and inadvertence,” which you had hitherto 
mercifully extended. 

It is a fact , that Towar & Hogan published the Westminster 
Confession in 1829. It is a fact, that it contains the passages I 
quoted as to tolerance and the magistrate’s duty in matters of re- 
religion — and it is a fact, which rests on the authority of Dr. Mil- 
ler, that ministers and candidates were “ obliged ” to adopt this 
Confession as the “ standard of Presbyterianism,” exactly one hun- 
dred years before. Consequently, it is a fact, that if this be not 
now your standard, it is because you have departed , in so much, at 
least, from the faith once delivered to the “saints.” The passages 
which you now call “offensive,’’ were supported by seven or eight 
different texts of Scripture; and I thought, that these texts might, 
possibly, have the same meaning now, that they had in 1729. In- 
deed, until you advised me of it, I did not conceive how these 
scriptural authorities could have become so “offensive,” in the in- 
terval, that they deserved to be ‘solemnly rejected-’ The doc- 
trines, which they were intended to support, are as true (though 
perhaps not so palateable) since the revolution, as they had been 
before. If, in the first instance they were false, it was injurious 
to the written Word of God to employ it so profusely for their 
support — and it was * tyrannical’ to ‘ oblige’ either professed min- 
isters” or candidates to adopt them. If, on the other hand, they 
were true, I do not see why they have been ‘solemnly rejected.* 
The doctrines of Christ do not change with the shiftings of every 
political gale. And though the British Lion gave place to the 
Eagle of Independence, ‘some fifty years ago,’ yet, I find it difficult 
to discover, by what mysterious process, this event could have nul- 
lified the scriptural doctrines of your standards, or converted them 
into 1 offensive passages.” Albeit, it seems that the work of ‘ Re- 
formation’ in the doctrine of Christ, is not the peculiar privilege of 
any ^ge — that the children are not satisfied with what their fathers 
have done in their behalf — and that I was led astray by taking it 
1 


138 


CONTROVERSY 


for granted that the ‘standard for Presbyterianism’ in the 19th cen- 
tury was the same, that ministers had been ‘ obliged to adopt, 5 
in the 18th. What it will be in fifty years more, is not known 
to any man living. One thing is certain, that the melody of Cal- 
vin and the chorus of the Westminster divines, have been enrich- 1 
ed with variations in every key. I suppose, however, that in refer- 
ence to your standards I might venture (with safety) to go as far 
back as the year 1821. In the ‘amended’ edition of that year, 
although the civil magistrates are shorn of the prerogatives, with 
which the Westminster divines and the ‘Adopting Act 5 of 17*29 
had invested them, as to the words , yet they are clothed with un- 
defined attributes, in which a keen eye may discover the lurking 
essence of the very passages, which are so offensive. In page 105 
they (civil magistrates) are honored with an office full of tender- 
ness and parental affection. ‘As nursing fathers, it is their duty 
to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the 
preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, 5 &c; 
The latter clause might seem to have been added, to prevent the 
passage from being ‘ offensive.’ But as soon as it will be conve- 
nient for the Assembly to tell us, what is the ‘ church of our com- 
mon Lord,’ may one half of the Christian denominations, who en- 
joy the equal protection of the Constitution, be astonished to find 
themselves excluded from the pale — and regarded by the ‘ nursing 
lathers’ of the other half, as step-children — nr worse ? And again, 
if the babe should languish, would it not be natural for the Gene- 
ral Assembly, as the physician, to prescribe a little of that political 
nutriment, by which it waxed strong in Geneva, Scotland and 
England itself, when the magistrates were, in very deed, its ‘ nurs- 
ing fathers?’ I will pursue this topic no farther— — except to 
say that, in my humble opinion, the magistrates of this Republic 
are well employed, if they study the laws and administer them 
with justice and impartiality- 1 — and that it is an insult to the spirit 
and language Of the Constitution, to invoke them as ‘ nursing fathers’ 
to what the General Assembly may think proper to call the ‘ church 
of our common Lord.’ 

The other paragraphs of your first column contain two pretty 
stories ; one about ‘ Dick doing nothing and Jack helping him, 5 — 
the other about the two ‘ strolling priests in Kentucky’ — one of 
whom, it seems, personated the Protestant, and evidently under- 
stood his part, since he ‘ fought long, died hard, but was always 
beaten This was genuine acting, so much like the reality — for 

Halting on crutches of unequal size, 

One leg by truth supported, on by (flies,) 

They slide to the goal with awkward pace 

Secure of nothiug but to lose the race. 

So it is with the antagonist of the Rev. Mr. Maguire, whom 
you have introduced. Mr. Pope, the king of Protestant contro- 
versy in Ireland, had the courage to enter the lists with him, 
where he fought long, and though I will not say he was beaten. 


CONTROVERSY. 


139 


lest I should offend you, yet it is certain that from that day to this , 
he has carefully shunned every thing like controversy with a Cath- 
olic priest. He did not possess that happy talent for which GokU 
smith immortalized the village schoolmaster. So it was with the 
celebrated Claude, whose glory it was, says Eustace, to have fallen 
by the hand of the illustrious Bossuet. So it was with the Pope 
of Calvinism in France, Du Plessis. in the discussion held at Fon- 
tainbleau in the presence of Henry IV. in the year 1,600. (see 
Sully’s Memoirs, Vol. 2. page 354.) This case is so illustrative of 
the manner in which Protestant controversalists assail the Catholic 
religion, that I will give a brief sketch of jt. 

Du Plessis had wrtten a book, not to prove his own religion , but 
to refute the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist and the Mass. The 
Catholics were startled, as usual, with the number of falsehoods it 
contained, and spoke so freely of them, that the author in his rash- 
ness, challenged any one to point out a single false quotation in the 
whole book. M. Du Perron, then bishop of Evreux, and after- 
wards cardinal, undertook to show as many as Jive hundred and 
fifty . The parties nptet before the king. Judges were appointed 
by him, some of whom were Catholics and some Calvinists. Fifty 
passages were to be examined every day ; but after the examina- 
tion of nine of them, in which he was unanimously convicted , Du 
Plessis became sick at the stomach, and the investigation proceeded 
no farther. ‘ Every one knows,’ says Sully, (a Protestant) ‘how 
the dispute was terminated. Du Plessis’ defence was weak and 
ended in his disgrace,’ One of the commissioners, Frasne-Canaye, 
a Calvinist, and Sainte Marie Du Mont, another eminent Protes- 
tant, were roused from the ‘ delusion’ of Protestantism, by the issue 
of this controversy, and some afterwards embraced the divine, but 
calumniated religion of the Catholics. 

Having disposed of your anecdotes in reference to the priests of 
Kentucky, with the citation of a few instances, in which Protes- 
tant disputants had the privilege of speaking for themselves , — in 
which they ‘ fought long, died hard, and were always ( substantially ) 
beaten,’ I shall now proceed to follow you through the heterogene- 
ous materials, of which your letter is composed. 

‘ You have called until you are weary for my reply to the ad- 
mission of the Rev. Mr. Maguire.” But pray by what right do 
you call on me, to adopt the language used by Mr. Maguire ? Sup- 
pose I were to call on you to adopt and defend the language of 
some Presbyterian brother, would you, on that account, feel your- 
self bound to answer? Not that I mean to decline answering 
your call, but to intimate that I am able to meet you in my own 
words , without having recourse to even those of Rev. Mr. Maguire. 

The sum of the quotation is this: “You (Mr. Hughes) prove 
the authenticity and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures by the tes- 
timony of the church. But how do you prove the authority of the 
church? Mr. Maguire says, it is “by your private judgment on 
the Scripture proofs and therefore you (Mr. Hughes) are obliged 


140 


CONTROVERSY. 


to have recourse for the proof of the church to the principle of 
private interpretation.” Is not this what you mean ? 

Answer "1st. Protestants admit the testimony of Scripture, and 
on this account, I quote it to prove the authority of the church. 2. 
I quote it not as an inspired book, if you prefer to take the ground 
of a Deist, but I quote it, in that case, as historical evidence of the 
fact, in which sense you will be obliged, even as a Deist, to admit 
its testimony. 3. The history of Christianity proves the authority 
of the church. From the days of the Apostles, the church pro- 
scribed — preached the doctrine of Christ to all nations — determined, 
by a final decision, all controversies, — and in all matters of religion 
exercised supreme authority. So that the authority of the church 
is proved with, or without, the Scripture. It seems that you can- 
not comprehend the distinction between a fact and an opinion . — 
When I quote Scripture to show that Christ appointed a ministry 
in his church, or that he was crucified, I merely furnish historical 
evidence bearing on the fact,, with which private interpretation 
has nothing to do. But when Protestants quote Scripture to sup- 
port their private opinions, which they call their doctrines, then it 
is that they use it, not to establish facts, but to support speculations, 
and thus degrade the written word of God, by making it a book 
of contradictions, as various as their minds, or their sectarian pre- 
judices. This is manifest from the multitude of your sects, and 
your endless disputations among yourselves, about the meaning of 
the Bible. 

But I should have proved, you say, my own rule of faith. I 
answer, that I have done so, and as long as you are pleased to 
shun a struggling with the reasoning and facts of my letters, I 
need not repeat what has already been said. You complain of my 
monotonous reference to them ; but you should remember, that al- 
though you have catered industriously for the prejudices of Protes- 
tant readers, by indulging in the antiquated calumnies of your pre- 
decessors against the Catholic church and the Bishops of Rome, 
you have not had the courage to close with me in a single argument. 
Even in your last epistle, although our discussion professes to be 
on the rule of faith, you tell us with great self-complacency, that 
* you had supposed at least that I would defend the Sacraments 
of our church .’ — and with the happiest versatility of talent, you 
wind up by expressing a desire to pass to ‘other topics,’ — as if 
you had not confused your letters on the ‘rule of faith,’ by the in- 
troduction, pell-mell, of every topic that has been discussed since 
the days of Martin Luther. 

In my last, I took occasion to protest against the injustice of 
those, who represent me as arguing against the Bible : and instead 
of admitting my protest, you return to the charge, and employ 
nearly the whole of your second column, to show that my argu- 
ments and those of Unitarians coincide in our estimate of the Bible! 
Whether or not you have done justice to their doctrines, it is not 
for me to determine. My reference to them was not for the pur- 


CONTROVERSY 


141 


pose of canvassing their doctrine, but merely to show that they 
and you are children of the same parentage — your rule of faith is 
the same— not the Bible, but your own respective opinions as to 
the meaning of the sacred book: to show farther, that, under the 
guidance of this fallacious principle of private opinion they have 
the same right to hold their doctrines, that yon have for yours. — 
I have multiplied arguments to show that Protestant Christianity, 
whether it be Presbyterian or Unitarian, rests not on the Bible, 
but on opinion, as its basis, and that every article in the super- 
structure of belief, shares the uncertainty of the foundation. What 
is orthodoxy among Protestants? Opinion. Every thing is opin- 
ion; and yet it is certain that opinion formed no part of the Reve- 
lation of Jesus Christ, and that there is not a single opinion in the 
whole Bible!! Npw, if this be so, is not the Protestant rule of 
faith a mere prelude to infidelity ? Does it not destroy the certainty 
of Revelation, and the sacred character of the divine volume, 
which, with insidious embrace, it effects to cherish ? But if it is 
not so, why do you not deny it, and show your Protestant readers, 
how they may have, by your rule, a better foundation for their 
religious belief, than they have for their politics : viz. opinion. 
To illustrate the truth of these observations, J will insert a ‘ few 
facts ’ taken from an article in the Vermont Chronicle, the pro- 
duction, evidently, of a Protestant pen. 1 , ‘ Out of about one hun- 
dred and eighty Unitarian societies in England, about one hundred 
and seventy are orthodox Presbyterian societies revolutionized. 2. 
In Ireland, a large number of Presbyterian ministers and churches 
have become Arian. 3. A large proportion of the Unitarian soci- 
eties in Scotland were once Presbyterians. 4. The Presbyterian 
churches in Geneva and in Switzerland generally, have gone over 
in a body to Unitarianism, or to something equally hostile to vital 
piety J Ope thing more I have to say, that you will do well never 
to engage in a controversy with an educated Unitarian, unless it 
be for the improvement of your logic. Not that I would side 
with him against you on doctrine, but because it is the inevitable 
misfortune of all those who adopt the Protestant rule of faith, to 
have no better foundation for true doctrines, even Christ's Divinity , 
than their brethren have for the contrary opinion. 

Now for your remarks on the canon of Scripture, in which you 
are as unfortunate as before. You say, ‘it was shown that the 
Jews, the Lord Jesus and his apostles, the early fathers, the Coun- 
cil of Laodicea, and the ancient church at large, rejected these 
books,’ (meaning what Protestants call Apocryphal books.) Now 
I reply boldly, that you cannot furnish proof of what you have 
asserted. That there is not a single evidence on record, that they 
were ‘rejected’ either by our Savior or his apostles; and if you 
assert thus inconsiderately what is untrue, can you blame me 
for reminding you of it? With regard to the ‘fathers,’ ‘councils,’ 
and ‘church at large,’ when you appeal to them to determine what 
books are canonical, and what books are not, you act a rational 


142 


CONTROVERSY. 


man ; and I take your invocation of their testimony on the matter, 
as a tribute paid to the Catholic principle of belief. If, therefore, 
their authority moves you in your selection of scriptural books, 
then I hail you as the child of tradition , no less than myself. But 
then, what becomes of your rule of faith? The Scripture alone 
does not determine the canonical books. Our Lord and the apos- 
tles are silent on the subject, notwithstanding your assertion to the 
contrary. And lo! you are constrained to invoke the aid of ‘fathers’ 
and ‘councils,’ to tell you what is Scripture and what is not. But 
what say you of the latter ‘ fathers?’ — .of Father Luther, for instance, 
for having rejected the epistle of St. James and St. Jude, and that 
of St. Paul to the Hebrews? What say you of Father Calvin, for 
having expunged the Apocalypse from the canon? Were these 
apocryphal? If not, why did these ‘fathers’ reject them? And 
the two Gospels and Acts, written by St. Luke and St. Mark — 
were they apocryphal ? Their authors were not apostles, and you 
have told us, that none but the apostles were iuspired. I had 
pressed this difficulty before, and instead of meeting it, you accuse 
me of a disposition ‘rather to injure the cause than spare the Pro- 
testant.’ You certainly injure my intentions in this charge, whilst 
you indirectly invoke mv forbearance. Still you try to extricate 
yourself. ‘Mark’s writings received,’ you say ‘the sanction of 
Peter, and Luke’s of Paul.’ So did those of Barnabas and Clement. 
But what then ? Again, the Apostle says in his epistles, ‘ Timo- 
theus our brother.’ What then ? I really cannot understand what 
you mean by all this. But to come to the point — were St. Mark 
and St. Luke inspired to write or were they not ? If they were, 
then you were wrong in saying, that none but the apostles were 
inspired : and for the sake of the Gospel of Christ, you should not 
leave your testimony to that effect on record. 

In reference to what you call apocryphal scriptures, which you 
say, have been added to our church, I have to reply again, that 
your accusation is a manifest acknowledgment of the necessity 
of ecclesiastical infallibility. You pretend, that the bible alone 
is your rule of faith — and yet it is by tradition that you attempt 
to show * What is bible and what is not.’ 

Catholics possess that canon of scripture, which has been recog- 
nised by the Christian church since the beginning. Some of the 
early fathers hesitated about the canonicity of certain books but 
during the same period, the same doubts were entertained respect- 
ing several books in the Protestant canon ; and the fact would go 
to exclude the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apoclypse and several 
other books of the New Testament. Calvin on this account reject- 
ed the revelations of St. John. Why then will you not be con- 
sistent and reject all, or receive all ? The Syriac version, so much 
praised by Protestant critics, and which they say, dates from about 
the time of the apostles, contains our canon. The council of Car- 
thage in 397, composed of 127 bishops, gives our canon, expressly 
naming every book ; that these had been received from the fathers 


CONTROVERSY. 


143 


as divine and canonical — ‘A patribus ista accfc&imus in ecclesia le- 
genda.’ Innocent I. in his letter to Exsuperius in 405, makes the 
same enumeration. So does the Roman Council under Gelasius 
I. in 494. Melito, to whose catalogue you refer, was only an in- 
dividual.* He mentioned the books of the Old Testament which 
Were then recognised every where, but did not say that the others 
were uncanonical. And he omits the book of Esther, which I 
find in your Confession of faith of 1821. The synopsis, attribut- 
ed to Athanasius, is considered by critics, as the production of 
the 6th century. The council of Laodicea in 375, was composed 
of only 22 bishops, and if you had taken the pains to be informed 
on the subject, you would not have exposed yourself, by Saying 
on its testimony, that ‘your present Protestant canon coincides with 
that of Christian antiquity.’ First, 22 bishops did not represent 
‘Christian Antiquity:’ and secondly, they made no mention of the 
Apocalypse. So that the coincidence is destroyed, except in your 
own imagination. One of the most ancient catalogues, cited by 
Beveridge gives the Catholic canon. Eusebius (lib. 3. c. 3. x. 25) 
says that some rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, and regarded 
as doubtful that of St. James, St. Jude, the 2d and 3d of St. John, 
and the Revelation. Are these, therefore, Apocryphal ? Is not 
one part of the inference as well deduced as the other? As to the 
books of the Old Testament, the Catholic canon corresponds with 
the Greek version, which was used in the synagogue of Alexan- 
dria, and by the Jews in Asia Minor, Africa, and generally where- 
ever the Greek language prevailed. Some of them were written 
after the canon of Esdras had been formed — and this, I trust, will 
account for their not being there enumerated. Origen, in his letter 
to Julius Africanus, speaks of them, as having been in use from 
the commencement of the church. And St. Augustine, writing 
against the semi-Pelagians 0 who denied the canonicity of some of 
these books, as you do, appeals to the authority of preceding ages, 
in their support, — ‘tarn longa annositate,’ — and if their antiquity 
was an argument in the 4th century against the semi-Pelagians, I 
do not see why it should not be as good, against Protestants in the 
19th century. Our canon is that held by the Christians of Syria 
to this day; whether Maronites or Catholics, Jacobites or Eutychi- 
ans. It is used by the Cophts of Egypt, by the Ethiopians and 
the Nestorians, separated as then they had been from the church, 
for more than 1200 years, (see Perpet. de la Foi. t. 5. 1. 7. also 
Biblioth. Orient, t. 3 and 4.) The Greek schismatics, in their 

* When, therefore, I went to the East, and came as far as the place, where 
these things were proclaimed and done, I accurately ascertained the books of the 
Old Testament, and send them to thee here below. The names are as follows. 
Of Moses five books, Genesis , Exodus, Leviticus , Numbers, Deuteronomy , — Jesus 
Nava, Judges, Ruth. Four of Kings. Two of Paraliponia (Chronicles), Psalms of 
David, Proverbs of Solomon, which is also called JPisdom, Ecclesiastes , Song of 
Songs, Job. Of Prophets, Isaiah Jeremiah. Of the twelve prophets one book — 
Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From these, I have, therefore, made the selection, which 
1 have divided into six books. (Melito accordinfi to Cruse’s Euseb. p. 164. 


144 


CONTROVERSY, 


Synod held in Jerusalem in 1672, under the patriarch DositheUS, 
give the Catholic canon, and add, ‘ these books we hold to be' 
cononical, and confess them to be sacred scripture, since they have 
been handed down to us by ancient usage, or rather, by the Cath- 
olic church.’ Shall we then turn aside from the mass of authority 
and hearken to the ipse dixit of Martin Luther, John Calvin, 
or the Rev. John Breckinridge, about apocryphal books ? Did 
not the two former gentlemen expel books even from the Protes- 
tant canon, in the most arbitrary and capricious manner ? Read 
over, I pray you, these testimonies, and reflect how imprudent you 
were, in a former letter, when you asserted that our canon of scrip- 
ture was framed only in the sixteenth century by the Council of 
Trent.’ And hereafter, if you should feel disposed to challenge 
‘ priests and bishops to the field of controversy,’ remember that 
there are other books to be consulted, besides ‘Taylor’s Dissuasive 
from Popery.’ 

In the Jewish dispensation, controversies were decided by the 
judgment of the High Priests and Sanhedrim — in reference to 
which you make me say, that ‘ of course by the same principle 
the pope and councils are the judges of controversies under the 
new law.’ You will observe, Rev. Sir, that 1 did not institute 
any such direct comparison. I spoke of the principle being the 
same under both dispensations. 1 must again refer the reader to 
the proofs contained in letter No. 5, to show that it is not by any 
feeble analogy, but by the positive institution of Jesus Christ, that 
the ministry of his church are clothed with power to preach the 
Gospel, administering his sacraments, and proscribe the heresies of 
innovaters in religion. They have exercised this prerogative from 
the beginning of Christianity. And it would have been iniquitous 
to have exercised it, if the Son of God had appointed the Bible 
alone according to private interpretation, as the infallible rule of 
faith. 

But the reference to the condemnation of Christ, in which the 
High Priest erred, is no argument on the subject. Jesus Christ 
the Sun of Righteousness, had already manifested himself to the 
world, by his miracles and doctrines, and thus superseded the au- 
thority of the Synogogues. Previous to this manifestation by mi- 
racles, the decision of the Jewish council, as to the birth-place of 
Christ, was true. And even in the conspiracy against his life, 
when Caiaphas declared it expedient that one man should die for 
the people, the evangelist adds, ‘this he spoke not of himself, but 
being the High Priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus 
should die for the nation.’ — John xi. 15. You ask me then, was 
the tribunal appointed by Almighty God in the old law, ‘ fallible 
or infallible? Answer, it was infallible, until it was superseded 
by Him, to whom ‘ was given all power in heaven and earth.’ 
Did they decide right or wrong ?’ Answer, they decided wrong ; 
because Christ had already proved to them, that He was the Mes- 
siah, and they shut their eyes against the evidence of truth. The 


CONTROVERSY, 


145 


term of their commission had virtually expired. It was known to 
themselves that their authority would be superseded by the coming 
of the Holy One — and consequently, their defection after His com- 
ing is no argument against their infallibility before — much less is 
it an argument against the infallibility of the church, secured in 
the commission given by Christ to his pastors, when he said, 

* Go, teach all nations — and lo, I am with you all days* even to the 
consummation of the world.’ 

‘ The Scripture,’ you say, * according to the ancient fathers, is 
the sole judge of controversies and interpreter of itself.’ Here, 
again, you appeal to the fathers, and give up the Bible alone. 
That the ancient fathers spoke in the most eloquent language of 
the Scriptures, is certain. That all Catholic theologians so spoke 
of them, is equally certain. That they quoted them against here- 
tics, who affected to admit no other testimony, is indubitable. But 
to say that they regarded the Scripture alone , as the rule of faith 
or the judge of controversies, is an unfounded assertion. I defy 
you to show one single instance of it in all ecclesiastical history, 
in which heresy was condemned by the testimony of Scripture 
alone. The church was in possession of the true doctrines of 
Christ — and heresy began in every age, by some individual pre- 
tending to have discovered in the Bible, tenets, with which the 
church had never been acquainted. This was novelty ; and until 
a new revelation be made, novelty of doctrine and error are, and 
will be, the same thing. Is not this the principle even of Presby- 
terianism itself? When you argue against Catholics you accuse 
them of denying the sufficiency of the Scriptures alone , as a rule of 
faith; whereas, they contend that God never* appointed them as 
an exclusive rule. But when you argue against your brethren of 
the low church party, you drop the boasted sufficiency of the 
Scriptures as a proof rule, unless your standards be superadded ! ! 
Your standards as ‘ amended’ by the General Assembly of 1821, 
have attained the venerable antiquity of twelve years : and yet 
you talk of ‘new lights!! 1 Heresy has always appealed to the 
Bible alone, for the purpose of secession from truth ; but so soon 
as it had seceded, it never failed to give up the sufficiency of the 
Bible; and to fence itself around with arbitrary Creeds, Articles of 
belief and Confessions of Taith. 

You ask me, why I did not cite the passage from Tertullian at 
first , as I did at last. Answer; I did not wish to make the quota- 
tion too long. But you are at liberty to cite the whole chapter, 
or the whole book, and you will find that every sentence, taken 
one with another, will be a dagger of testimony against the princi- 
ple of Protestantism, on the rule of faith. You pretend to have 
won a great concession, when you say, that ‘even on my own ad- 
mission, Turtullian makes many Apostolical churches and Apostol- 
ical chairs .’ Answer : there were many churches, but only one 
doctrine. And you assert what is utterly unfounded in fact, when 
you say, on Turtullian’s authority, that the ‘ writings of the apos- 


146 


CONTROVERSY. 


les’ constituted the infallible rule of faith. In this you are as un- 
ust towards your author, as you had been in other instances ; and 
yet you allude to this case as an offset to your affair of Bellarmine, 
in which you say, £ I charge you with injustice to the passage.’ 
My charge was much stronger than this. I charged upon you, 
that in six distinct instances you had quoted authorities, and that 
in reference to each of these six authorities, your assertions were 
untrue. I challenged you to meet me before a sworn interpreter, 
or even Dr. Wylie, and you shrank from the alternative. I now 
challenge you lor the third time : and I trust that, without clog- 
ging the proposal with irrelevant conditions, you will either meet 
me, or give up your pretensions. Certainly you will understand 
this language. 

With regard to ‘the warning against reading this controversy,’ 
I insist upon an explanation. In the first instance, it was Bishop 
Kenrick, who gave the warning. He denied — you apologized— 
and he was satisfied. But still, the ‘ most respectable and respon- 
sible gentleman insisted that such a warning was given in one of 
our churches, and on the day named.’ And in your last letter 
you soften it down into a mere question ‘left open for correction!* 
But how could that be, since the gentleman still ‘ insisted,’ even 
after the correction was given ? The information was false : and 
now I require of you, in the name of the clergymen, who officiate 
in the other churches, to give the name of your informant. Shall 
you give circulation to' false testimony persist in maintaining it, 
and yet plead ‘ the delicate nature of your situation, 5 for conceal- 
ing the name of its author ? Even public morals will not tolerate 
such taifling. We require then, that the charge be proved , or re- 
tracted , or else the name of the author given. 

And now, with reference to Dr. Milner, I have not a word to 
say against the encomiums you have passed upon him. I know 
him only by his writings, of which I may be permitted to speak, 
since they are public property. He seems to be one of those hap- 
py mortals, who, if I may judge from his last letter, are perfectly 
acquainted with the Catholic religion, without ever having taken 
the trouble to study it. On that subject he can instruct others, 
without having learned himself. He has put forth in his last let- 
ter to Presbyterians, for Catholic doctrines, assertions, for which 
he cannot find authority in any Catholic approved writer in the 
whole universe. If he can, I pledge myself to give $500 to the 
Bible Society, provided he, or any other Presbyterian, will give 
me the same sum for the Orphans, in case he cannot. The Doc- 
tor’s other writings have been made sufficiently free with, by Pro- 
testant adversaries; and though I have never seen a criticism on 
his style, yet I have been often compelled to laugh at the expense 
of his logic. You have no doubt seen the treatise of Dr. Cook of 
Kentucky, in which the author has the advantage of being able to 
use Catholic arguments, in support of Episcopacy. For, our friend 
of Princeton has wielded his pen against his Episcopal brethren, 


CONTROVERSY. 


147 


no less than against Catholics. And as his testimony will no doubt 
be dear to you, I will give you a specimen of his language, touch- 
ing the Bible alone. His first position was against Episcopalians. 

‘ The sufficiency, says he, ‘ and the infallibility of the Scriptures 
alone, as a rule of faith and practice, was assumed as a grand 
principle of the Reformation from Popery, and is acknowledged to 
be the foundation of the Protestant cause.’ (Dr. Milner, Yol. 1, 
p. 26.) A Presbyterian clergyman in Baltimore, Rev. Mr. Dun- 
can, happening to understand the Doctor literally, concluded, that 
of course, the Confession of Faith was superfluous, since the Bible 
alone was sufficient ; and proceeded accordingly to dispense with 
the standards of the church. Whereupon the wisdom of the Cath- 
olic principle, in reference to the rule of faith, broke in upon 
the Doctor, and he wrote as follows: — ‘How is she, (the church) 
to ascertain the character of her candidates for the holy ministry, 
when according to the brother, whom I am constrained to oppose, 
she is forbidden to employ any other test than that, (the Bible,) 
which the most corrupt and unqualified will bear just as 
well as the most excellent : and which is of course, in reference to 
the point to be decided, no test at all.’ (Letter to a gentleman in 
Baltimore, page 24.) 

Now, pray, what more have I said touching the Bible, as a test 
of doctrine, than that it is a test, which the ‘ most corrupt,’ as well 
as the ‘ most excellent will bear;’ and that, in the Professor’s own 
language * in reference to the point to be decided, it is no test 
at all.’ And if it is no ‘ test at all,’ then it is not ‘sufficient’ as the 
only rule of faith and practice. Here then is the testimony, even 
of Dr. Milner, coming to support my argument, which is strong 
enough without it. 

As you seem to be anxious to quit the rule of faith, which, by 
the way, you had quit from the beginninng, I need not remind 
you, that according to our agreemeut the next question will be — 
‘ Is the Protestant religion the religion of Christ?’ Now I hope 
that you will not undertake to prove the Protestant, by assailing 
the Catholic religion. I do not say that I will follow you imme- 
diately : but in the mean time, be pleased to let me know what I 
am to understand by the ‘ Protestant religion ?’ Give me your own 
definition and I will respect it. Above all, let us have the six 
passages, on which we are at issue, decided by Dr. Wylie, or any 
other interpreter of languages. I shall be ready on the 6th of 
May, next Monday, if it meet your convenience. Please also to 
favor us with the name of the gentleman who abused your confi- 
dence, by asserting and ‘ insisting ,, that the people were warned 
hy one of the Catholic Priests in this city, against reading this 
controversy. Yours, &c. 

Jno. Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY- MO- XIV 


RULE OF FAITH. 

Philadelphia, May % 183*3 

To the Rev. John Hughes. 

Sir — At an early day in the present controversy, ‘with all the 
pomp and circumstance of war,’ you announced to the American 
public your confident determination, ‘ to drive the ploughshare of 
reason , evidence , and argument , through the radical delusion of Pro • 
testantismS It now becomes that candid public, rather than myself, 
to judge whether you have redeemed a pledge so self-confident and 
presuming. The smile which was provoked by the perusal of these 
lofty pretensions, was probably succeeded in many a Protestant’s 
breast, as well as mine, by the recollection of Ahab’s admonition to 
Benhadad, ‘Let not him thatgirdeth on his harness boast himself as 
lie putteth it off.’ Sounding epithets, your readers find, are not 
synonymous with solid arguments; and the skill of the Jesuits, and 
the mad zeal of the Crusaders, with all the enginery of Rome, must 
ever prove themselves impotent against ‘the truth as it is in Jesus. 

Nothing can more strongly evince the weakness of your cause, 
and your own consciousness of it, than your repeated efforts to divert 
me from the course of the discussion, by the introduction of various 
and irrelative details. As to the Rev. Dr. Milner, whom you so 
feebly assail, and so indelicately introduce, it is superflous for me to 
say to you, or to the country, that he stands in no need of defence 
from me. Your notice of this triumphant exposure of the devices 
and errors of your church, (in a late letter addressed to Presbyte- 
rians) is good proof of the efficacy of that appeal. As it regards your 
proffered bet of $500, you may not be aware that Protestants are 
not accustomed to gamble ; and if, as I suspect, he should not close 
in with the wager you have laid, you must attribute his declining it 
to our principles, and not to our fear of defeat. I am pleased to find 
Dr. Milner, in one of his works published about twenty years ago; 
distinctly avowing that ‘ the bible is the only infallible and the suf- 
ficient rule of faith and practice and you will excuse me for ex- 
pressing my utter amazement, that any one who claims a character 
for either candour or common sense, should see any contradiction 
between this proposition and another, which maintains that the 
church is bound to be careful, that those whom she receives inter- 
pret this rule as she thinks right, before she agrees to walk with 
them in ecclesiastical communion. Does it imply any contradiction 
fo the principle that the rule is infallible and sufficient, that a body 


CONTROVERSY. 


149 


of Christians refuse to receive any but those whom they consider as 
interpreting this rule in a scriptural and correct manner? And, 
besides, does not every Confession of Faith proless to found itself 
solely on the Scriptures ; to receive nothing but what the Scriptures 
teach; and to receive it simply and solely, because it is found there? 
It is, therefore, a definitive evidence of what a church does believe, 
not an authoritative rule by which to believe ; and of what the bi- 
ble does say, not what it should say. 

In reference to the article from the Vermont Chronicle, true or 
false, we freely allow that Presbyterian churches may become Uni- 
tarian, and that at different times, certain congregations have become 
so. But if there be weight in the fact, where does its pressure lie ? 
Thousands of congregations, millions of individuals, yea, nations, in 
chief part, and they the most enlightened, free and virtuous, of the 
ages in which they lived, once Roman Catholics, and who under 
that denomination never read the bible, have at different times be- 
come evangelical Protestants, and from that hour have been diligent, 
devout, and affectionate students of the bible. Does this prove that 
their former profession and creed were erroneous ? It must be so, 
according to your argument. 

And now a final word in regard to your slander of our Confession 
of Faith. And it is simply this, your misstatements, so pertina- 
ciously repeated, though greatly to your own detriment, are its best 
defence. 

I. Your vain struggle to extricate yourself from the difficulties of 
your argument on the Jewish Sanhedrim as an infallible judge of 
controversy, moves one’s compassion. Having been driven to the 
alternative (on your principles) of justifying the crucifixion of our 
blessed Lord, or of rejecting the doctrine of Infallibility, you say 
‘ even in the conspiracy against his life, when Caiaphas declared it 
expedient that one man should die for the people, the Evangelist 
adds, that ‘this he spoke not of himself; but being the High Priest of 
that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, 5 John 
xi: 15. Then you plainly mean to say that as Caiaphas delivered 
a true prophecy as High Priest, he was infallible in doctrine. — 
Now in the same council, by the advice of the same High Priest, 
it was determined that Christ should die ; and we are told that 
(John xi: 53) from that day forth they took council together, to put 
him (Christ) to death.’ Either then, (by your argument) the High 
Priest was infallible in the prophecy, and fallible in the decree, 
that is fallible and infallible at the same time ; or else Christ was 
righteously condemned. 

You proceed thus, 1 You ask me then was the tribunal, appoint- 
ed by Almighty God in the old law fallible or infallible ?’ Answer; 
It was infallible, until it was superseded by Him, to whom, ‘ was 
given all power in heaven and earth. 5 Did they decide wrong ? 
Answer; They decided wrong, because Christ had already proved 
to them, that he was the Messiah, and they shut their eyes against 
the evidence of truth. The term of their commission had virtually 


150 


CONTROVERSY. 


expired.* Here then, you admit ' that this tribunal was infallible 
until it was superseded. 5 When was it superseded ? Was it su- 
perseded before the death of Christ? Was it not after this decree, 
that Christ died, and in the act of breathing out his soul unto death, 
said * it is finished?’ Was it not after this that he arose from the 
dead, instituted Christian Baptism, and commissioned the Apostles 
‘ to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature ?’ 
Then was this tribunal superseded at the time of this decree? On 
what a precipices brow do you stand, rather than give up your fatal 
system! 

Probably, afraid of this dreadful dilemma, you attempt to explain 
by adding — ‘the term of their commission had virtually expired !’ 
But what do you mean by virtually expired ? Either it had, or 
had not expired. If it actually expired, why do you say virtually , 
only ? If it had not actually expired, it was still existing, and hence 
by your reasoning, infallible ; and therefore, we are again brought 
to the horrible conclusion, that Christ was righteously put to death. 

You admit that ‘a tribunal’ (for example, the Church of Rome, 
or its pope and council) ‘ may be suspended when it is proved to 
them, that they shut their eyes against the evidence of truth ;’ con- 
sequently your church may be superseded, and of course lose its 
infallibility. How striking, in this connexion, does the Apostle 
Paul’s warning to the Roman Church appear, especially as he, 
by divine inspiration, was comparing the Jewish with the Roman 
Church. 1 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou 
being a wild-olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with 
fhern partakest of the root and fatness of the olive ttee ; boast not 
against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root,* 
but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, the branches were broken 
off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they 
were broken oft’, and thou standestby faith. Be not high-minded, 
but fear : for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest 
he also spare not thee.’ Rom. 11. chapter. 

' This passage proves, without a question, that the church of 
Rome may be cast oft’ like the Jewish church. And here we see 
the presumption of your church, in first calling herself supreme 
and universal, and then contending that if she fails, the universal 
church fails! The universal, the true church of Christ cannot 
fail ; and the only way to prove that it can, is to prove that the 
church of Rome means the only true and universal church. 

II. You have not even attempted to answer the body of my ar- 
guments on the ‘Apocryphal Books.’ For example, why did the 
Jews reject them? especially as they had, (you say) ‘ an infallible 
tribunal until superseded by the coming of Christ!’ Why did our 
Lord and his apostles sanction their rejection of them ? Why, for 
several centuries after the death of Christ, are ancient writers, and 
the earliest catalogues silent about them? Why do some of these 
catalogues explicitly exclude them from the canon ! It is a fact, 
that the old Syriac version does not contain these books. I assert 


CONTROVERSY. 


151 


also, the following propositions concerning these books, and shall 
prove them, if you dispute them. 

1st. They possess no authority whatever, either external or in- 
ternal, to procure them admission into the canon of Scripture. 

2d. They contain many things which are fabulous, contradic- 
tory, and directly at variance with the cononical Scriptures. 

3d. they contain passages, which are in themselves, false, absurd 
and incredible. 

4th. They do not even claim to be inspired. And yet they are 
made by your ‘infallible church,’ a part of the Holy Word of God! 

III. You seem to be utterly unwilling to meet the question 
which was put to you in the words of the Rev. Mr. M’Guire. 
He allowed ‘ that the Catholic has to exercise his private judg- 
ment upon the scripture proofs of the authority of the church .’ Dr. 
Milner says, in his ‘ End of Controversy, 5 chap. 13, ‘ Hence, it is 
as clear as noon-day light, that by solving this one question, which 
is the true church ? you will at once solve every question of re- 
ligious controversy that ever has, or that ever qan be agitated.’ 
‘ It is agreed upon then that all we have to do, by way of dis- 
covering the true church, is to find out which of the rival churches 
or communions, is peculiarly One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.’ 
‘ Yes, my dear sir, these marks of the true church are so plain in 
themselves, and so evidently point it out, that fools cannot err, as 
the prophet foretold.’ Isa. xxxv. S, in their road to it. They are 
the ‘ flaming beacons, which forever shine on the mountain at the 
top of the mountains of the Lord’s house.’ Isa. 22. 

Bellarmine also thus writes : 

‘ Dicimus ergo, notas Ecclesise, We say, therefore, that the 
quas ad ferimus, non facere evi- marks of the church which we 
dentiam veritatis simpliciter, shall adduce do not plainly (or 
quia alioqui non esset articulus of themselves) constitute the evi- 
fidei, hanc ecclesiam esse veram dence of truth, because, otlier- 
ecclesiam ; neque ulli inveniren- wise it would not be an article 
tur qui id negarent, sicut nemo of faith that such a church is 
invenitur, qui neget sententias, the true church, nor could any 
quas Mathematici demonstrant, person be found who would de- 
sed tamen efhciunt evidentiam ny that article, just as no person 
credibilitatis, juxta illud ; Psalm can be found who will deny the 
92. ( Testimonia tua credibilia points which the mathematicians 

facta sunt nimit.’ Apud eos au- demonstrate. Yet they (the 
tern, qui admittuntScripturas di- marks of the church) constitute 
vinas, et historias, acPatrum ve- the evidence of credibility ac- 
terum scripta, faciunt etiam evi- cording to the 92 Psalm. ‘Thy 
dentiam veritatis. Tametsi enim testimonies are very credible.’ — 
articulorum fidei veritas non po- But among those who admit the 
test nobis esse evidens absolute, divine Scriptures and histories, 
tamen potest esse evidens ex hy- and the writings of the ancient 
pothesi, id est, supposita veritatc fathers, they constitute the evi- 
Scripturarum; quod enim a scrip- dence of truth. For although 


152 


CONTROVERSY. 


tura evidenter verum, suppositis the truth of the article of faith 
Scripturis. - is not absolutely evident, yet it 

is evident by hypothesis, that is, 
the truth of the Scriptures being 
admitted ; for whatever is evi- 
'# dently deduced from the Scrip- 
tures, is evidently true, the Scrip- 
tures being admitted. Chap. 3. 
Book 4. concerning the marks 
of the church. 

Such are the admissions of your standard writers. Then it is 
acknowledged, that the marks of the true church are not self-evi- 
dent, but that the proofs of them must be deduced from the sa- 
cred Scriptures. It is also acknowledged that there is one sub- 
ject on which private judgment must be exercised, viz. In find- 
ing out from the word of God, the marks of the true church. 
All the passages of the word of God, then, that go to show what is 
the true church, are to be judged of by private judgment. There 
are fifteen marks of a true church mentioned by Bellermine, viz. 

J . ‘ The name Catholic. 2. Antiquity. 3. Duration. 4. Ampli- 
tude of Believers. 5. The succession of Bishops. G. Agreement 
in doctrine with the primitive church. 7. Union of the members 
among themselves and with the Head. 8. Sanctity of doctrine. 
9. Efficacy of the doctrine. 10. Holiness of life. 11. The glory of 
miracles. 12. The light of Prophecy. 13. Confession of adver- 
saries. 14. The unhappy end of the church’s enemies, 15. 
Temporal felicity.’ These marks must be found out, before you 
know whether the Greek, or Episcopal, or Roman, or Presbyterian, 
or any other church, be the true church. But a very large amount 
of Scripture is to be interpreted in order to find the true church. 
For example, to make out the 6th mark, a man must know what 
the doctrines of the Primitive church were, (in a word must know 
the whole word of God) before he cag. Gompare its doctrines with 
those of the churches now existing. 

So too in finding the 8th mark, ‘sanctity of doctrine.’ Bcllar- 
mine tells us, ‘ the church is said to be holy, because its profession 
contains nothing false as to the doctrine of faith, nothing unjust as 
to doctrine of morals.’ It is true that Dr. Milner says, (as quoted 
above) ‘ these marks of the church are so plain in themselves, and 
so evidently pointed out, that fools cannot err in their road to it.’ 
But when you come to examine the proofs which are brought from 
the Scripture, they will be found as a whole to be less clear than 
the body of Scripture is, and far less so than those portions of the 
word of God on which fundamental doctrines and practical duties 
rest. 

If private interpretation is minibus in the use of all other Scrip- 
ture, why is it not ruinous here? If private interpretation is suf- 
ficient to explore the whole word of God, in order to find out the 
true Church, why is it not sufficient for the rest? And if truth 


CONTROVERSY. 


15 $ 


stands out as clear as the mountain tops, so that the fool cannot 
err, in whatever relates to the church, how does it become sudden- 
ly and impenetrably dark in all things relating to Jesus and salva- 
tion, to sin and holiness, to all doctrine and all duty ? If private 
interpretation may, with moral certainty, and indisputable credi- 
bility, lay the foundation of your whole system, why may it not 
avail for the whole volume of truth, and the whole catalogue of 
doctrine ? Here then, by the admission of your own writers, pri- 
vate interpretation is the only guide in a search after salvation, 
and all the articles of faith ; for you say there is no salvation out 
of the true church, and the true church alone teaches infallibly the 
articles of faith ; And private interpretation must find out the true 
church ! Is not this then, a ruinous chasm ; a palpable contradic- 
tion ; a most disingenuous and deceitful argument ? 

It may simplify and enforce the above remarks to give the fol- 
lowing remarks between a Romanist and a Protestant, extracted 
from an able work on the subject of infallibility. 

Papist. I pity your condition, sir, to see you live at such un- 
certainties for your religion, and obstinately refuse to consult that 
living oracle and infallible judge, whom God hath placed in his 
church, to decide all controversies in faith and worship. 

Protestant. Sir, I thank you for your charity; and though I 
do not find myself so uncertain as I perceive you think 1 am, yet 
I should be glad of such an infallible guide as you talk of, if I 
knew where to find him. 

Papist. He is to be found in the church of Rome ; for that is 
the church which is the pillar and ground of the truth ; there is 
St. Peter’s chair, whom Christ made the supreme governor of his 
church, whom he commanded to feed his lambs and his sheep ; 
that rock on whom Christ promised to build his church, and that 
the gates of hell should not prevail against it ; and, therefore, in 
communion with this church and in obedience to the supreme pas- 
tor of it, you cannot err. 

Protestant. But pray, how shall I be sure of this ? 

Papist . Do you ask that now, when I have referred you to 
such plain texts of Scripture for the truth of it ? 

Protestant. Will you allow me then, to interpret these texts 
according to my own private judgment ? And why then may I 
not use my judgment in other matters? for I think all the articles 
of my creed are as plain as Scripture, as that the Pope or church 
of Rome is the supreme infallible judge ; and, indeed, if I must 
stand to my own judgment in this matter, I can find no such thing 
in these texts as you have alleged. 

Papist. Your own judgment ! No, by no means; this causes 
all the heresies in the world, that men will presume to judge for 
themselves. 

Protestant. What course must I take then ? 

Papist. You must stand to the judgment of the church, which 

3 


CONTROVERSY. 


m 

cannot err; and whatever heretics say, she will tell you, that these 
texts prove the church’s infallibility. 

Protestant. Hold, sir, what is it we are to prove ? 

Papist. That the church is infallible. 

Protestant. And this I must prove from Scripture ? 

Papist. Yes. 

Protestant. And must not rely on my own judgment for the 
sense of Scripture, but on the interpretation of the church ? 

Papist. Right, this is the true Catholic way. 

Protestant. That is, I must take the church’s word, that she 
is infallible ? 

Papist. No ; you must believe the Scriptures, which say so. 

Protestant. But I must believe the scriptures, not because I un- 
derstand this to be the sense of it, but because the church so ex- 
pounds it ? 

Papist. Right, for heretics expound it otherwise. 

Protestant. And what is it then but to take the church’s word 
for her own infallibility; to believe it because she says it herself, 
or to believe it because she makes the Scripture say it ? And so 
then, you can never be infallibly certain of your church’s infalli- 
bility ; — and of course you can never be infallibly certain that its 
teaching is true. Then as to any doctrine, say the divinity of 
Christ, Protestants believe it, because the inspired word of God in 
its plain and obvious sense clearly teaches it. Papists believe it 
because the church says so — and they believe the church to be 
infallible, because they think the plain and obvious sense of Scrip- 
ture teaches it. In a word, the faith of the Protestant is resolved 
into the infallibility of Christ and his apostles; whereas the faith 
of Papists is resolved into the infallibility of popes and councils. 

* Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you 
more than unto God, judge thou !’ Peter, Acts iv. 19. 

IV. It is agreed between us, that one great end of the infallible 
rule of faith established by Christ, was to determine disputes in his 
church, (See rule 2d.) One of the artifices of your reasoning upon 
the rule of faith is, to insist that no rule is infallible which does 
not finally settle all disputes, and since the Bible fails to settle all 
disputes it cannot be, you say, an infallible rule of faith. Now, 
all that you can say of your boasted rule of faith [unless you resort 
to fraud or force] is, that it settles disputes among all who will 
submit to it. The same in the strictest sense is true also of the 
Bible. But if men will not submit to the Bible, then disputes can- 
not be determined by the Bible. If men will resist its authority, 
and pervert its true meaning, then we say there is no remedy on 
earth. We say, if the Bible is not sufficient, nothing is, and they 
who go beyond it and resort to other means, are guilty of fraud,, 
usurpation and rebellion against God. In a word, — I shall prove 
that the method of determining disputes in the church of Rome, 
is anti-scriptural and anti-christian, and, therefore, not that in-’ 
fallible rule established by Christ. 


CONTROVERSY. 


155 


1st. In order to secure a pretended and apparent union, you 
<dra\v a distinction between doctrines and opinions. All those 
points upon which the church is divided, however important, are 
called opinions ; and those are called doctrines, upon which you 
are agreed. Of course, you are always agreed upon doctrines or 
points of faith. Thus, for example, it is a cardinal doctrine with 
you, that your church is infallible. But where this infallibility is 
located, is a matter of opinion, or in other words, it is a thing 
about which you are not agreed. The least observation will con- 
vince any one, that infallibility is useless, unless you can locate it. 
Suppose, for example, I wish to bring a suit before the Supreme 
Court of the United States. When I ask ‘ who compose this court,* 
and * where this court holds its sessions,* I seek for information 
which, it is indispensable for me to possess, in order to secure a de- 
cision. Now what if it should be replied, ‘there is a Supreme 
Court appointed by the president of the United States, with the 
approval of the Senate, which is supreme judge in certain contro- 
versies ; but who compose this court, and where it holds its ses- 
sions is a matter of opinion .’ * It is not agreed who they are, or 

where they meet ; but this court, and this alone, takes cognizance 
of such cases !’ Is it not equally absurd to say there is a living 
infallible judge of controversy in the church of Rome ; but who he 
is, or where he has his seat, we are not agreed ; it is a matter of 
opinion; we cannot tell! It seems to be the opinion of Mr. Hughes, 
that the pope and the council united are infallible ; a host of writ- 
ers are of opinion that infallibility is seated in the pope ; and ano- 
ther host commit it to the church universal. But it is not a doc- 
trine in any case ; it is only a matter of opinion. Again, the church 
of Rome has for ages been divided upon the question, * whether 
the Virgin Mary was conceived in the womb of her mother, with 
the same purity that is attributed to Christ’s conception in her 
womb.’ Multitudes contend for both sides of the question. If it 
be true that she was thus conceived, that is, immaculately , then 
the Bible account on the whole subject of sin is utterly false. It 
is therefore a question ofimmense importance. Yet even the coun- 
cil of Trent was divided on this question, and the heated disput- 
ants were finally left unsatisfied, and the question unsettled ; and 
finding it could not be made a doctrine without a schism, they 
finally agreed to decline any interference with the point in dispute, 
and leave it undecided and free. Now by such a procedure your 
church holds out a show of union, when in fact evangelical pro- 
testants do really agree more in doctrines than are essential to sal- 
vation, than the members of the church of Rome. As to agree- 
ment in * doctrines that are damnable,’ we confess we covet it not; 
and in this respect, yield to you the unenviable distinction of such 
a concert. 

Here let me add, that this is a very curious process for an infalli- 
ble church. We leave some points untouched ? Why ignorant; 
or if informed about them, why silent, on some points, and infah 


156 


CONTROVERSY. 


libly certain and fiercely zealous about others ? Does the Holy 
Ghost enlighten only the ‘ hemisphere,’ of truth to the eye of Rome? 
Does ‘ light and darkness thus dwell together,” in the Roman 
Councils? Why, for example, are you so infallibly certain that in- 
fants cannot be saved without the baptism of a priest, and that his 
baptism is null without his intention in administering it, and yet 
not be able to say whether all the race was conceived in sin ? Why 
hold one part as opinions and other parts as doctrines ? Have you 
not said [see letter 3d tenth head] ‘ that Christ never inculcated the 
belief of an opinion ?’ Why then as all are doctrines, do you teach 
all ? If you are ignorant of some, then how are you infallible ? 
If you withhold your decisions for fear of schisms, is not your uni- 
on a fiction or a fraud ? 

3d. But when this passive way of settling disputes fails, you 
have a more vigorous method, at which we have before hinted. 
It is worthy of a more distinct and ample exibition. And here I 
refer to your own Bellarmine, who [as you informed me] is a stand- 
ard writer with you, who was the nephew of a pope [Marcellus 
the 2d ;] was a cardinal in the church ; and, above all, whose 
works received the sanction of the pope. I extract part of the 21 
and 22d chapters of his 3d book on the laity. 

Caput 21. Chapter 21st. 

Posse hcerreticos ab ecclesia That heretics condemned by the 
damnatos temperibus poems et eti - church may be punished with tem- 
am morte mulctari. poral penalties, and even with 

Nos igitur bre viter ostende- death. We will briefly show 
mus, hsereticos incorrigibilies ac that the church has the power, 
praesertim relapsos, posse ac de- and it is her duty, to cast off in- 
here ab ecclesia rejici, et a secu- incorrigible heretics, especially 
laribus potestatibus temporalibus those who have relapsed, and 
pcenis atque ipsa etiam morte that the secular power ought to 
mulctari. inflict on such temporal punish- 

Primo probatur scripturis. — ments, and even death itself. — 
Probatur secundo sententiis et 1st. This may be proved from 
legibus imperatorum, quas eccle- the Scriptures. 2d. It is proved 
sia semper probavit. Probatur from the opinions and laws of 
tertio legibus ecclesise. Proba- the Emperors, which the church 
tur quarto testimoniis Patrum. has always proved. 3d. It is 
Probatur ultimo ratione natu'rali. proved by the laws of the church. 
Primo haeretici excommunicari 4th. It is proved by the testimo- 
jure possunt, ut omnes fatentur, ny of the fathers. Lastly. It 
ergo et occidi. Probatur con- is proved from natural reason, 
sequentia quia excommunicatio For first: It is owned by all, 
est major poena, quam mors tem- that heretics, may of right be 
poralis. Secundo, experientia excommunicated — of course they 
docet non esse aliud remidium, may be put to death. This con- 
nam ecclesia paulatim progressa sequence is proved, because ex- 
est et omnia remidia experta ; communication is a greater pun- 
primo solum excommunicabat de- ishment than temporal death. — 


CONTROVERSY. 


157 


inde addidit mulctam pecuniari- 
am ; turn exilium, ultimo coacta 
est ad mortem venire ; mittere 
illos in locum suum. Tertio, fal- 
sarii onnium judicio merentur 
mortem ; at haeretiei falsarii sunt 
verbi Dei. Quarto, gravius est 
non rervare fidem hominem Deo, 
quam feminam vero; sed hoc 
morte punitur, cur non illud : 
Quinto, tres causae sunt propter 
quos ratio docet homines occi- 
dendos esse ; prima causa est ne 
mali bonis noceant ; secunda est, 
ut paucorum supplicia multi cor- 
rigantur. Multi enim quos im- 
punitas faciebat torpentes suppli- 
cia proposita excitant; et nos 
quotidie idem videmus fieri in 
locis ubi viget Inquisitio. Deni- 
que haereticis obstinatis benefici- 
um est quod de hac vita tollan- 
tur : nam quo diutius viviunt eo 
plures errores excogitant, piures 
pervertunt, et majorem sibi dam- 
nationem acquirunt. 


Caput 22d. 

Salvuntes Objectiones. 

Superest argumenta Lutheri 
atque aliorum hcereticorum dilu- 
ere. Argumentum primum, ab ex- 
perientia totus ecclesiae. Ecsle- 
sia inquit Lutherius ab initio, sui 
usque hue nullum combusset hae- 
reticum ergo non videtur esse vo- 
luntas Spiritus ut cumburantur. 

Respondeo, argumentum hoc 
optime probat, non sententiam, 


Secondly ; Experience proves 
that there is no other remedy ; 
for the church has step by step, 
tried all remedies — first, excom- 
munication alone, then pecuni- 
ary penalties ; afterwards, ban- 
ishment; and lastly, has been 
forced to put them to death ; to 
send them to their own place. 
Thirdly; All allow that forgery 
deserves death ; but heretics are 
guilty of forgery of the word of 
God. Fourthly ; A breach of 
faith by man towards God, is a 
greater sin, than of a wife with 
her husband. But a woman’s 
unfaithfulness is punished with 
death; why not a heretic? Fifth- 
ly ; There are three grounds on 
which reason shows that here- 
tics should be put to death : the 
first is, lest the wicked should 
injure the righteous; second, that 
by the punishment of a few, many 
may be reformed. For many 
who are made torpid by impunity 
are roused by the fear of punish- 
ment; and this we daily see in 
the result where the Inquisition 
flourishes. Finally , It is a ben- 
efit to obstinate heretics to re- 
move them from this life; for 
the longer they live the more 
errors they invent, the more 
persons they mislead : and the 
greater damnation do they trea- 
sure up to themselves. 

Chapter 22d. 

Objections Answered . 

It remains to answer the ob- 
jections of Luther and other he- 
retics. Argument first. From 
the history of the church at large. 
The church, says Lather, from 
the beginning, even to this time, 
has never burned a heretic. — 
therefore it does not seem to be 
the mind of the Holy Spirit, 
that they should be burned ! I 


158 


CONTROVERSY, 


sed imperitiam, vel impudentiara 
Lutheri: nam cum infxniti pro- 
pemodum, vel cumbusti, vel ali- 
ter necati fuerint, aut id ignora- 
vit Lutherus, et tunc imperitus 
est, aut non ignoravit, et impu- 
dens, ac mendax esse convicitur: 
nam quod haeretici sint saepe ab 
ecclesia combusti, ostendi potest, 
si adducamus pauca exempla de 
multis. 

Argumentum secundum ; ex- 
perientia testatur non profici ter- 
roribus. Respondeo, experien- 
tia est in contrarium ; nam Do- 
natistae, Manichaei, et Albigen- 
ses armis profligati, et extincti 
sunt. 

Argumentum decimumtertium: 
Dominus attribuit ecclesiae gladi- 
um spiritus, quod est verbum 
dei, non autem gladium ferri ; 
immo Petro volenti gladio ferreo 
ipsum defendere, ait : Mitte gla- 
dium tuum in vaginam. Joan 
18. Respondeo, ecclesia sicut 
habet Principes Ecclesiasticos, et 
secutares, qui sunt quasi duo ec- 
clesi© brachia, ita duos habet 
gladios, spiritualem, et materia- 
lem, et ideo, quando manus dex- 
tera gladeo spirituali non potuit 
liaereticum converterere, invocat 
auxiliam brachi sinistri, ut gla- 
dio ferreo haereticos coerceat. 

Argumentum decimum octavi- 
um: Nunquam Apostoli brachi- 
um seculare contra hcereticos in- 
vocaverunt. Respondet S. Au- 
gustinus in epist. 50. et alibi, 
Apostolos id non fecisse, quia 
nullus tunc erat Christianus Prin- 
ceps, quem invocarent. At post- 
quam tempore Constantini — Ec- 
clesia auxilium secularis brachii 
imploravit. 


reply, this argument admirably 
proves not the sentiment, but 
the ignorance, or impudence of 
Luther ; for as almost an infinite 
number were either burned! or 
otherwise put to death , Luther 
either did not know it, and was 
therefore ignorant; or if he knew 
it, he is ^convicted of impudence 
and falsehood — for that heretics 
were often burned by the church 
may be proved by adducing a few 
from many examples. 

Argument 2d. Experience 
shows that terror is not useful 
(in such cases.) I reply, experi- 
ence proves the contrary — for the 
Donatists, Manicheans and Al - 
bigenses were routed , and annihi- 
lated by arms. 

Argument 13th. The Lord 
attributes to the church ‘the 
sword of the Spirit, which is the 
word of God ;’ but not the ma- 
terial sword; nay, he said to 
Peter, who wished to defend 
him with a material sword, ‘put 
up thy sword into its scabbard,’ 
John 18th. I answer : As the 
church has ecclesiastical and sec- 
ular princes, who are her two 
arms; so she has two swords, 
the spiritual and material; and, 
therefore, when her right hand 
is unable to convert a heretic 
with the sword of the Spirit, she 
invokes the aid of the left hand 
and coerces heretics with the ma- 
terial sword. 

Argument 18th. The apos- 
tles never invoked the secular 
arm against heretics. Answer : 
[according to St. Augustine, in 
letter 50 and elesewhere] The 
apostles did it not, because there 
was no Christian Prince whom 
they could call on for aid. But 
afterwards, in Constantine’s time 
— the church called in the aid 
of the secular arm. 


CONTROVERSY. 


150 

The mere translation of these infamous passages discloses the 
Very * mystery in iniquity,’ which for ages has been working in the 
church of Rome. Here we have the extraordinary fact, that the 
Old Testament and the New, the laws of the church, the testimony 
of the Fathers, the history of the Church, reason, the good of 
other men, and even mercy towards the unhappy victims, are all 
adduced in one cumulative argument, to prove that the church of 
Rome has the authoiity, and that it is her duty to put to death men 
who differ incorrigibly from her in their doctrine ! You will hard- 
ly say, these are opinions ; for here, we find, that he adduces, 1st, 
ecclesiastical law ! I^or can you say that the church did not burn 
these heretics, but that the civil power did it, for we see, 2d. that 
‘the civil power (as stated above,) is one of the arms of the church, 
and its sword, one of the swords of the church and that ‘ the 
church has always approved,’ the edicts and acts of emperors in 
this way — and ‘ that heretics were often burned by the church !* 
Perhaps you have read the life of George Wishart, who was mar- 
tyred by your Cardinal Beaton, of bloody memory. In it you will 
find that when the cardinal failed to secure from the Regent the 
condemnation of Wishart for heresy, without a fair trial, he return- 
ed for answer, that he had sufficient authority to condemn heretics 
without the interposition of the civil power ; and accordingly he 
actually tried, condemned, and burned Wishart, in despite of the 
distinct prohibition of the Regent of the country. 3d. This, your 
standard author, calls Luther a fool and a knave for denying that 
the church had burned heretics. He says ‘ almost an infinite num- 
ber of heretics were burned by the church, and instances the Don- 
atists, Manicheans, and Albigenses.’ 4th. He tells us the only 
reason why the church did not burn heretics before Constantine, 
was that there was no prince who would do it ; — but as soon as 
she could have it done she did it. Query. Why is if not done in 
the United States ? It is done in Spain ! I beg Mr. Hughes to 
tell us why ! 5th. And this is the unchangeable church ! Of course 
she is the same now as she was then, — and would, if she could do 
the same now as she ever did. She does not lack the will, but 
the power ; and wo to this land if that power be ever acquired ; 
6th. This passage maybe compared with the long extract which I 
gave in letter No. 8. from the Greek Lateran Council decreeing the 
destruction of heretics which you so strangely passed, on a former 
occasion. 

ILLUSTRATION FROM HISTORY — MASSACRE OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW. 

Mezerai’s History of France, fol. vol.2. p. 1098. [Paris 1646.] 
During two months, this horrible and cruel tempest overspread 
France in some places more, and in some less, and destroyed not less 
than 25,000 persons. Davila page 275, says: the report constantly 
prevailed, that in the course of a few days not fewer than 40,000 
of the Huguenots had perished. 

The holy father and all his court displayed a great rejoicing, and 


CONTROVERSY. 


160 

went in solemn procession to the church of St. Louis, to render 
thanks to God for so happy a success. 

The following extracts from the letter of Pope Pius V. book 3. 
let. 45. incontestably proves that the massacre of St. Bartholomew 
owes its origin to the vindictive councils of the Popes. ‘To our 
most dear son in Christ, Charles, the most Christian King of the 
French. The public joy of this city has very much augmented 
our pleasure, which at the first certain intelligence of so great 
a victory, rejoiced and does rejoice. The fruit of this victory con- 
sists in this, that by a just animadversion, the wicked heritics, the 
common enemies being removed out of the way, its former peace 
and tranquility may be restored to that kingdom*’ Thuanus in his 
History, book 53, tells us, that on the news of this massacre being 
received at Rome, it was instantly resolved, that the Pope with the 
cardinals should straightway go to the church of St. Mark, and 
should solemnly return thanks to the Lord for so c great a blessing 
conferred upon the Roman See and the Christian world, that thence 
a jubilee should be published in the whole Christian world. Its 
causes were declared to be, that they should return thanks to God 
for the destruction of the enemies of the truth and of the church 
in France.’ & c. &.c. 

Finally. Fleuri in his Ecclesiastical History, vol. 23. book 173. 
p. 557. tell us, Gregory the 13th, only regarding the good which 
be thought likely to result from this, to the Catholic religion in 
France, ordered a procession, in which he himself joined, from the 
church of St. Peter’s to the church of St. Louis, to return thanks 
to God for so happy a result ; and to perpetuate the memory of this 
event, he caused several medals to be struck, wherein he himself is 
represented on the one side an angel carrying a cross in one hand, 
and a sword in the other, exterminating the heretics 

Allow me to add one item more to this delectable catalogue. 
Among the extracts from Bellarmine given above, there is this 
distinct approval of the inquisition: ‘ We daily see the same re- 
sults [viz. the good done in puting an end to heresy] in places 
where the inquisition flourishes.' You are not a stranger I sup- 
pose to Joannes Devotus. His institutions have the highest sanc- 
tions of your church at Rome itself, as containing nothing contrary 
to faith or good morals. Of course his authority will not be ques- 
tioned ; and as his writings are of comparatively recent date, [1693] 
they give us glances at the Roman church in our own times. I 
omit the original, because so much has been already introduced. 
But it is open to your inspection, if you have it not in your posses- 
sion, vol. 4th, tit. 8th, page 101—118, under the head ‘Inquisitors 
ofheritical pravity,’ he gives the following statements. ‘The 
cause of instituting the tribunal called the Inquisition was this. 
At first every Bishop in his own diocess, or a number of Bishops as- 
sembled in a Provincial Council, made inquisition of those errors 
which arose in the diocess or province ; but the more weighty mat- 
ters were always referred to the apostolic seat [Rome ;,] and thus 


CONTROVERSY. 


m 


every Bishop or provincial council took care to bring to its proper 
issue whatever was decreed by the apostolical see. But in process 
of time, when greater evils pressed, it became necessary for the 
pope to send legates into those regions in which heresy had long 
and widely spread, that they might assist the bishops in restraining 
the audacity of abandoned men, and in deterring Christians from 
foreign and depraved doctrines. But when new errors daily sprung 
up, and the number of heretics was greatly increased — seeing that 
the legates could not always be at hand, nor apply the proper 
remedy, it was determined to institute a standing tribunal , that 
should always be present, and at all times, and in every country, 
should devote their minds to preserving the soundness of the faith 
and to restraining and expelling heresies as they arose. Thus it 
was that the inquisitors were first appointed, to perform the office 
of Vicars to the holy see. But as in a matter so weighty as the pres- 
ervation of the purity of the faith, the inquisitors needed that close 
union of mind, and sentiment, which is proper to the apostolic 
see, as the center of unity, there was instituted, at Rome by the 
popes an assembly or congregation of cardinals in which the pope 
presides, This congregation is at the head of all inquisitors, over 
the whole world ; to it they all refer their more difficult matters ; 
and its authority and judgment are final. It is rightly and wise- 
ly ordered that the pope’s office and power should sustain the in- 
stitution. For he is the centre of unity and head of the church: 
and to him Christ has committed plenary power to feel, teach, 
rule, and govern all christians.’ Now from this it appears, 1. That 
according to the government adopted at Rome, the inquisition is 
a constituent part of their system ; — and that it is established where- 
ever they have such a foot-hold as to make it possible. Buchanan 
found one even at Goa, in the East Indies. Whether there be one 
in this country, is a matter of opinion. But it is sound doctrine to 
have it if possible. 2. The pope is the head of the inquisition over 
the whole world — and the congregation of the cardinals at Rome 
is the supreme court of the inquisition ; of course it is to the pope, 
and his eardinals, we are to look as the authors, originally, of the 
unparalleled enormities which have characterized this bloodiest in- 
stitution in the history of the world. 

Let me here give another Vord of history. 

A critical history of the Spanish inquisition, by D. J. A. Lleo- 
rente, formerly secretary of the inquisition, &-c. &c., translated 
from the Spanish manuscript in the presence of the author, b y Alex. 
Pellier. 2d edit. (Paris 1818.) 

It is the inquisition which has ruled in Spain from the year 1481 
to the present day, of which I undertake to write the history, Tom. 
I. p. 140. 

Recapitulation of all the victims condemned and burnt, 31,912 

Burned in effigy, 17,695 

Placed in a state of penance with rigorous punishments, 291,450 

Tom. 4. p. 271 

4 Total, 341,057 


162 


CONTROVERSY- 


When the French obtained possession of Spain, under Joseph 
Bonaparte, Llorente obtained permission to examine all the archives 
of the inquisition. His work therefore is the most authentic that 
is extant. When we come to speak of these subjects as principal, 
and not illustrative topics, we design, providence permitting, to 
make such disclosures of its history as truth demands. But now 
let it suffice to say, that this is the institution which Bellarmine 
praises, as a fine method of settling disputes ! On this plan we 
grant you that it is easy to ‘ determine disputes/ by putting an end 
to all the disputants on one side of the question. And now Sir, 
having at length stated the method Used by the church of Rome, 1 
ask if the inference is not irresistible, that yours is a rule of fraud, 
and of force ; abhorrent to right of reason, mercy and truth ; and as 
such, that it is an insult to our holy religion to say it was institut- 
ed by Jesus Christ, or that yours is an infallible rule? 

In regard to ‘ the reference,’ I shall be prepared to meet you, 
providence permitting, on Friday the 10th of May. On Monday 
the 6th, and until the evening of the 9th, I expect to be absent 
from the city. 

Your call for the name of my informant is not candid. I am au- 
thorized to give it [as I have already informed you,] whenever the 
bishop shall ask it. I now inquire, does he or does^he not de- 
mand it? 

Your attempt to prevent my statements on this subject, is un- 
worthy of the character you profess to bear. From first to last it 
was stated by me in the form of a question ; and the confidence ex- 
pressed in the truth of the testimony, was not mine, but that of my 
worthy informant. 

It is my purpose, in the next letter, to meet your call for a defi- 
nition of the Protestant religion, and to proceed to the discussion 
of other topics connected with the controversy ; holding myself in 
readiness at the same time, to meet with promptness whatever you 
may say in addition, on the rule of faith. Yours, &c. 

John Breckinridge- 


CONTROVERSY. NO. XV 


RULE OF FAITH. 

Philadelphia, April , 26, 1833. 
To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 

Rev. Sir . — If there was any tiling wanting to show the weak- 
ness of the Protestant principle in reference to the rule of faith, it 
is found in your attempt to supply the absence of argument, by the 
introduction of reproach. I wished to spare the feelings of our 
readers, in regard to the crimes which history has ascribed to Cath- 
olics and to Protestants on the subject of religious persecution. 
Men of education, on both sides, have long since come to the con- 
clusion, that although persecution forms no part of the religion of 
Jesus Christ, yet, unhappily, there are few denominations that have 
not persecuted when they had the power. But all are agreed, that 
this charge comes with a peculiar bad grace from either John Cal- 
vin or any of his disciples. There is blood upon his memory; and 
it looks doubly dark and deep when associated with the recollec- 
tions that he set up to be a man of god, and a reformer of the 
church of Christ. Bellarmine, indeed, sanctioned the right of 
Catholic principles to wield the sword of civil power against per- 
sons condemned by the church of heresy; — but so far as he is con- 
cerned, the fact exhibits only the theory of persecution and the 
sanction of his pen. Calvin’s was the sanction of the pen and fag- 
got, the theory and the practice. The example of the master has 
been faithfully imitated by his followers, And, appealing to the 
decision of impartial history, I defy you to show a single State in 
Europe or America, in which Calvinists or Presbyterians conced- 
ed free toleration from the moment they possessed civil power, 
whether derived by grant from the crown, as in New England, or 
acquired, as in Europe, from rebellion and usurption ! 

If then history does not contain one single exception, on this 
head, I would leave it to the good sense of our readers, whether 
it is wise, whether it is modest in you to charge Catholics with 
persecution, and that too, in the name of a sect which has stained 
the soil of every country in which it ruled, with the blood of the 
Protestant, as well as Catholic, victims of its bigotry and intoler- 
ance ! It would seem that it is a crime for any other denomina- 
tion to do what Presbyterians have never failed of doing when they 
had the power. I do not perceive by what divine right Presbyte- 
rians claim the monopoly of persecution. If it be a privilege at all 
which I deny, Catholics possessed the priority of title. They did 


164 


CONTROVERSY. 


not spring up in the 16th century of the Christian church, to dispute 
the faith of Protestants. But on the contrary, the Protestants 
then came into existence to dispute with them, for something more 
than ‘the kingdom which is not of this world;’ — viz: for their 
churches, their castles, their towns, and their kingdoms. It is a 
fact, that at the rise of the Beforroation so called, Catholics pos- 
sessed every thing ; and that Protestants as such possessed nothing 
save their private individual estates. How came they then to pos- 
sess themselves of public power and property which did not belong 
to them ? Did they give any equivalent? They had none to give. 
Did the Catholics resign them voluntarily? No, certainly: — if they 
had, they would have escaped the charge of persecution. They 
were in possession — defence was their natural privilege. King- 
doms were tranquil and united in the possession of the same reli- 
gion, whenever the heresy began, and the question was, whether 
it was the right of nations to extinguish the spark, or allow their 
institutions, civil and religious, to be consumed in the political con- 
flagration which it never failed to excite. It was to illustrate this 
question, that Bellarmine embarked on the sea of political casuistry. 
He contended that the civil magistrates were, in the language of 
your standard of 1821 ‘nursing fathers of the church’ — and it is 
a remarkable coincidence that he attempts to prove his position 
by reference to the same texts of Scripture by which the Winches- 
ter divines, and the “adopting act of 1729/ made it a sin for Pres- 
byterians to ‘tolerate a false religion.’ 

Bellarmine himself must be responsible for his opinions on this 
subject, which do not at all belong to the faith of the Catholic re- 
ligion. He is a ‘ standard writer,’ in treating of Catholic doctrines, 
of questions ‘ de fide.’ But on the points of political economy, or 
civil government, as they are not even ‘ fere de fide,’ his pen was 
at liberty to ramble as well as any other individual. His reasoning 
on the question, appears to me as extravagant at it can to you — and 
I am just as ready to reject it. For you will observe that Catho- 
lics, as such, are responsible only for the doctrines of the church, 
and not for the private opinions of her members. Show me then 
the decree of any council, or the bull of any Pope, proposing perse- 
cution as a part of our religion — and let that document be the proof 
of your charge. 

Neither does the inquisition of Spain constitute any part of our 
religion. Of course you are at liberty to make it the theme of de- 
clamation as long as you please. If, however you were questioned 
as to what the inquisition really is, I doubt much whether your in- 
formation would not be found very defective. It would probably 
correspond with your knowledge of indulgences — ‘ a bundle of li- 
censes to commit sin.’ 

With regard to the ‘Massacre of St. Bartholomew,’ I condemn 
it as much as you. It was a deed of blood and horror. But let 
the blame be attached to its authors, Charles the IX. and Catharine 
ol Medicis, who favoured the Hugenots aud Catholics, alternately, 


CONTROVERSY. 


165 


as their interests seemed to require. But to form a correct judg- 
ment of this sanguinary event, it is necessary to consider it in con- 
nexion with the events by which it was preceded. The Hugue- 
nots of France had committed many similar acts of barbarity. Da- 
vila relates that upon the death of Francis II. when liberty of con- 
science was granted them, besides burning churches and monaste- 
ries, they massacred people in every street of Paris. Heylin a 
Protestant, relates that in a time of profound peace, they fell upon 
and murdered the whole clergy who composed the procession of 
Corpus Christi in the city of Pamiers, and afterwards committed 
similar outrages at Montauban, Rodez, Valence, &,c. (Hict. Presb. 
1. ii.) It is known by the proclamation of Charles, immediately 
after the massacre, that it was not. on account of their religion, but 
to anticipate the conspiracy of Coligni and his associates — * non re- 
ligionis odio, sed utne fariae Colinii et sociorum conjurationi obiam 
iret.’ (Tliuan. lib. lii.) 

The Huguenots constituted a kind of independent party, in the 
heart of the nation. They had their own treachery to support 
themselves in their wars against their sovereigns. And Admiral 
Coligni went so far, as to propose furnishing ten thousand Hugue- 
nots for the army — and declared that he and they would be obliged 
to take up arms against the king himself, if he denied this offer, 
and refused to aid the Protestants and Flanders ! ! (See Walsing- 
ham’s Despatches quoted by Digges. 226.) Was it from St. Paul 
that this chieftain of the Protestant party in France, learned to hold 
this language towards his sovereign ? Here was a subject dictating 
to his king. Still all this does not justify the horrible measure by 
which that king rid himself of that subject and his party. It fur- 
nishes however a different range of motives, besides those to which 
Protestants usually ascribe the massacre. 

It is also certain that the king took infinite pains to make his sub- 
jects and foreign principles, especially the Pope, believe that in kill- 
ing the Huguenots, he had only taken the necessary measures of 
self-defence to preserve his own life, together with the constitution 
and religion of his kingdom. (Thuan. 1. ii. Maimb. 1. vi.) And the 
Biographer of Gregory XIII. clearly show r sthat the deliverance of 
the French king from his pretended conspiracy , was the event for 
which public thanks were offered at Rome, and not for the massa- 
cre itself, as you have stated, (pagi vol. vi. p. 729.) Again in ref- 
erence to the number of the slain, it is evident that your informa- 
tion has not kept pace with your zeal. Among the Huguenot 
writers, Perrifix reckons 100,000, Sully 70,000, Thuanus 30,000, 
La Popelirine 20,000, the Reformed Martyrologist 15,000, and 
you 40,000, ‘ according to the report which prevailed.’ But the 
Martyrologist, wishing to be more correctly informed, procured 
from the ministers in the different towns where massacres had taken 
place, the names of those who had perished or were supposed to 
have perished ; — he published the result in 1582: and in all France 
he could discover the names of no more than 786 persons. (Caverae 
Dissertation, xxxviii.) 


166 


CONTROVERSY. 


It would be well also for you to understand that the Catholic 
clergy were the most active in protecting the Huguenots from the 
vengence of popular fury. And that among other instances, the 
Bishop of Liseux, a Dominician Friar, opposed orders given in the 
name of the king — declaring ‘ it is the duty of the good shepherd 
to lay down his life for the sheep, not to let them be slaughtered 
before his face. These (the Huguenots of his diocess) are my 
sheep, though they have gone astray, and I am resolved to run all 
hazards in protecting them.’ [Maimb.] But, Rev. Sir, are you 
not driven to great straits, when you give a dissertation on the hor- 
rors of the inquisition, the massacre of St. Bortholomew, &c. in- 
stead of arguments on the rule of faith ? These are stale topics. 
Your introduction of them was utterly uncalled for by the question, 
under discussion ; and it can have no other effect ; except to mis- 
lead ignorance, confirm prejudice, and inspire hatred. To do this 
is not a comely or benevolent office for a minister of the gospel, 
which breathes but peace and charity. 

If however, Protestants were immaculate on the subject of per- 
secution, you might have put forward this charge with .some de- 
gree of consistency. But all the reformers persecuted when they 
bad the power, and sanctioned it, when they had not. If therefore 
I give you a few quotations and facts to prove this assertion, I hope 
that neither you nor our readers will be offended at an exposure to 
which your eyes are unaccustomed, but which you have made ne- 
cessary. I do it not to increase the seperation between Catholics 
and Protestants, which is already too great, — not in a spirit of 
bad feeling or retaliation, but simply to show that Protestants if 
they are to be accountable for the deeds of their ancestors [and if 
they are not, I do not see why we should be] have no reason to 
boast of superiority on the subject of liberality and religious tole- 
ration. But Rev. Sir, if your forefathers and mine have done those 
things in the name of religion, which religion does not sanction, 
I would rather have joined you in walking backwards, to cov- 
er their deeds with the mantle of oblivion, than be obliged to join 
you in exposing them. Still, painful as the task is, you have made 
it necessary, and it must be accomplished. 

It is but right that I should begin with the reformer of Geneva, 
Calvin himself. Servetus, says he, ‘ was cast into prison, whence 
he escaped. I know not how, and was wandering through Italy 
for about four months. At length, having, under evil auspices, 
come hither, he was arrested, at my instigation, by one of our Syn- 
dicts,’ (Calvini, Epist. et Respons. p. 294.) Again, (p. 290.) ‘ The 
author (Servetus) is held in prison by our magistrates, and soon, I 
hope, to suffer his punishment. 

In his letter to M. Du. Poet, he says, of those who differ from 
him in the interpretation of the Bible, ‘ Pareils monstres doivent etre 
etouffes, comme fis ici en P execution de Michel Servet, Espagnol:’ 
That is, 'they ought to be strangled as was done here with the 
the Spaniard, Michael Servetus.’ 


CONTROVERSY. 


167 


This gentle reformer would have strangled [etouffes]* Gentiles, 
Okin, Blaudrat and others, if they had not either fled or retracted ; 
which they were obliged to do to save their lives. Melancthon, 
Bullinger and the Protestant clergy of Switzerland generally, and 
in solemn session, approved the faggot, which consumed Serve- 
tus. Bucer declared that he should have been torn limb from 
limb !’ 

John Knox, was ready to prove, by the prophets and plain scrip- 
tures of God, what generation they [the Catholics] be, to wit, un- 
fruitful and rotten ; apt for nothing but to be cast into hell fire.’ 
[Appellation, p. 30.] 

Even the meek John Wesley as late as the year 1780, proclaim- 
ed that ‘ they [Catholics] ought not to be tolerated, by any govern- 
ment, Protestant, Mahometan, or Pagan. 5 

Let us now look for the mild, tolerate and evangelical language 
of Luther: If, ‘ says he, in his book against Sylvester Prieras, ‘ we 
despatch thieves by the gallows, highwaymen by the sword ; her- 
etics by fire ; why do we not rather attack, with all kinds of arms, 
these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and all 
this sink of the Romish Sodom, which corrupts without ceasing, 
the church of God, and wash our hands in their blood. 5 

In England the history of Protestant toleration has been writ- 
ten in statutes of similar tint. Protestants were burned alive for 
heresy, and Catholics ‘ hanged, embowelled and quartered, 5 because 
they would not become protestants. To deny the supremacy of 
Henry VIII, or his daughter, when she became head of the church 
was quite enough to entitle any one to all the privileges of mar- 
tyrdom. 

Your old friend, Archbishop Usher ; by way of showing his au- 
thority among Romanists, 5 entered a catholic chapel with armed 
soldiers, seized the priest in his vestments and hewed down the 
crucifix. He and eleven other Protestant bishops, solemnly decid- 
ed that c to give them [Catholics] a toleration, or to consent that 
they may freely exercise their religion, is a grievous sin. 5 [Plow- 
den, vol. I. c. 4.] In 1642, the same Usher, extorted a promise 
from Charles I. never to connive at popery — and on this intolerant 
pledge administered to him the sacrament. [Birch, p. 278-9.] 
Poor Charles little imagined then that his presbyterian subjects would 
entitle himself to a place in the matyrdom of Protestant persecu- 
tion. 

But presbyterians have persecuted greater men than mere kings. 
The learned protestant, Grotius, in his dungeon, is an instance of 
it — in the low countries: — where the Presbyterian Gomarists perse- 
cuted the Presbyterian Armenians with the most deliberate and 
unrelenting fury. If we turn our eyes to the Cromwellian ascen- 
dency in Great Britain and Ireland, we shall see what kind of tol- 
eration Presbyterians practised. Dr. Taylor [a Protestant, A. B., 
of Trinity College,] tells us, ‘that they [puritans] employed blood- 
hounds to track the haunts of these devoted men, 5 [catholic priests.] 


168 


CONTROVERSY. 


And that during* the latter part of the 17th and begining of the 18th 
century, ‘Priest hunting,’ was a favorite field sport in Ireland.’ 
[See History of Ireland, vol 2. p. 52., Harper’s Family Library.] 

The presbyterians, indeed were themselves persecuted. But 
nothing could teach them mercy. The ‘ Pilgrim fathers, 5 fleeing 
from intolerance across the ocean, had scarcely landed on the rock 
of Plymouth, till they began to persecute each other. They put 
the Quakers to death without pity, as pestilential heretics.’ [Hist, 
of Bapt. in New England, vol. 1.329.] * Whipping, 5 ‘branding,’ 

and ‘ cutting off the right ear,’ were mitigated forms of punish- 
ment for the crime of heresy — that is, for interpreting thebible for 
themselves. In a word, show, in all history, a single instance, 
in which Presbyterians possessed civil jurisdiction over ten miles 
square of the surface of this earth, without practising intoleration 
and persecution, within the limits of their territory ! 

If, on the other hand, Catholics had been as persecuting as you 
pretend, could they not have rid the world of the first reformers, 
as Calvin rid Geneva of the Spaniard? I will take but one or two 
cases in point. The same Dr. Taylor already quoted, says: — ‘It 
is but justice to this malignant body [the catholics — he might well 
say, ‘ maligned,’] to add, that on the three occasions of their obtain- 
ing the upper hand, [in Ireland] they never injured a single per- 
son in life or limb, for professing a different religion from their own.’ 
And Thomas Campbell, the Poet, [Morning Chron. London, Feb. 
11, 1833.] says: — the toleration practised by the Catholics of Po- 
land, ‘ ought to make protestants blush.’ 

Again, the catholic colony of Maryland unfurled the first banner 
of religious freedom that ever floated on the breeze of heaven. The 
eharitable Dr. Miller, however, denies them even the merit of good 
motives in this. He seems to have had access to their intentions, 
and tells us accordingly, that they did it ‘ from policy. ’ But their 
‘ policy,’ in this regard availed them little, — and the following tes- 
timony from Jefferson’s notes on Virginia, shows how unkind it was 
in a descendant of ‘ the Puritans,’ such as Dr. Miller, to have made 
the remark: ‘ The persecuting laws which were passed by the 
Virginians soon after this period against the Puritans, made the 
latter emigrate in considerable numbers, to Maryland, that they 
might enjoy under the Popish proprietary , that liberty of consci- 
ence, of which they were deprived by their fellow Protestants.’ 
[Jeff*. Query XVII.] What was the consequence ? Puritanical 
gratitude of course. 

‘ When, upon the revolution, power changed hands, the new- 
men (Ah! Doctor!) made but an indifferent requital for the lib- 
erties and indulgence they have enjoyed under the old administra- 
tion. They not only deprived the harmless Catholics of all share 
in the government, but they even adopted the whole body of the 
penal laws of England against them.’ (Wyne’s Hist, of British 
empire in America, London, 1770, vol. I. p. 239.) 

Need I inform you that to this day the laws of Protestant intol- 


CONTROVERSY. 


m 


<e* ante arc repealed in New Jersey and North Carolina; so that 
for exercising the freedom of conscience, a catholic in those states 
is disqualified from holding the office even of Constable? 

Now let Protestants see whether it is becoming in them to charge 
us with persecution. At the time of reformation, the faith, the ec- 
clesiastical jurisdiction, the civil power, the churches, the fortress- 
es, the cities, the kingdoms, the crowns, in a word, every thing, 
belonged to catholics. They could plead for their title the pre- 
scription of a thousand years. Supposing, then, we grant that in 
defending themselves in any, or all of these possessions, they are 
guilty of excesses, by how many considerations may these exces- 
ses be extenuated ? But where shall we find the plea for protest- 
ant intolerance ? AH their possessions, whether belonging to this 
world, or the world to come, were of recent origin, and acquired by 
the title of usurpation. Yesterday they claimed freedom of consci- 
ence ; and to day, having the power to refuse it, they ‘ hang/ * em- 
bowel/ and ‘quarter/ or burn to death, the wretch, who acts upon 
their own principles ! ! If God has appointed as the rule of faith, 
that every man shall understand the Scripture for himself, then Ser- 
vetus was as justifiable as Calvin in their interpretation. Why then 
did Calvin burn Servetus ? On that principle, Servetus would have 
had quite as good a right to burn Calvin. Why did Henry VIII. 
the father of the reformation in England, burn every body that 
stood in opposition to his religious opinions, — if the freedom of 
opinion be the right of all ? Why did his protestant daughter, 
Queen Elizabeth, the third head of the English church, why did 
she burn, and hang, and embowel, and quarter, those who differed 
from her opinions? 

Why did the Rev. Mr. Wesley proclaim in his writings that 
not even ‘Turks or Pagans/ were justified ‘in tolerating Roman 
Catholics ?’ Why did John Knox preach that Roman Catholics 
were apt only for hell fire,’ and proclaim that it was the duty of 
the magistrates to put them to death ? Why did Presbyterians put 
their fellow Protestants to death in Geneva, England and America ? 
And these are people who reproach Catholics with what does not 
belong either to the spirit or the letter of their religion, viz: the 
massacre of St. P»artholomew and the inquisition ! ! 

Let honest and impartial Protestants, therefore, place these ac- 
counts side by side, and strike the balance between their ances- 
tors and ours. Are you not, consequently, as unfortunate in appealing 
to this test, in favour of the Protestant rule of faith as you have 
been in every other? But pray, Rev. Sir, what have these mat- 
ters to do with that principle, which the Son of God established, 

* to guide us/ in our discrimination between truth and error? The 
other portions of your letter shall now be attended to. 

1st. I trust it will not be considered extravagant in me, to in- 
sinuate that the ploughshare has actually passed through the radi- 
cal delusion of Protestantism, on the rule of faith ; when the read- 
er will recollect, that vou have not dared to grapple with a single 
5 


CONTROVERSY. 


110 

argument of reason, fact, or history, that I have adduced to shove* 
its absurdity. You have, indeed, presented yourself as the advo- 
cate of the bible, and the defender of the Holy Ghost, as if my ar- 
guments against the Protestant, or in support of the Catholic rule 
of faith, were directed against the sacred volume, or the Divine 
Spirit! ! ! You have made quotations, which are found to have 
been falsified, in every instance that I have had time to examine. 
You have, by adding, and omitting words, changing punctuation, 
& c. &.C., made the champions of the Catholic church, to speak the 
language of the ‘ Protestant delusion,’ which they never uttered. 
You have brought forth Luther acquitting, and Bellarmine accusing 
the church of persecution ! You have made me a fellow conspir- 
ator with the Jews in condemning the Son of God ; and with the 
Unitarians in condemning the bible. In a word, our candid read- 
ers will perceive with astonishment; that you are obliged to dis- 
tort my position, by misrepresentation, before you are able to bring 
your feeble artillery to bear against it. 

2. Doctor Miller has said, that the bible alone is the * only and 
sufficient rule of faith and practice — lie has said also, that in re- 
ference to the points to be decided, the bible * is no test at all. 1 And 
you accused me of wanting ‘ candour and common sense,’ for be- 
lieving that these two positions are contrary to each other ! ! Does 
the reader imagine that he will save his character for ‘ candor and 
common sense,’ by subscribing the paradox with you, that the bi- 
ble which is ‘ no test at all,’ is, at the same time the exclusive and 
* sufficient rule of faith and practice ?’ Doctor Miller has subscrib- 
ed both propositions, and you are pleased to endorse them. Now 
I would sooner forego your opinion of my ‘ candor and common 
sense,’ than believe, that they mean exactly the same thing. In 
proposing to convict the doctor of ignorance or misrepresentation, 
of the Catholic doctrine, under the penalty of five hundred dollars, 
I did not imagine that there was any gambling. The doctor ought 
not to impute false doctrine to his Catholic fell ow citizens — he 
ought not to coin a religion, and say it is theirs; when in fact' they 
abhor and disclaim it. 

3. With regard to the manner by which Catholics arrive at the 
knowledge of the church, I have twice proved that it is not by 
private interpretation. Even in my last letter, I showed that the 
authority of the church, is a fact that can be established with or 
without the Scripture ; and you do not pretend to dispute my rea- 
soning, but return to the charge as if it were original!! 

4. You are strangely at a loss to distinguish between a doctrine 
of the church, and an opinion of schoolmen — although the distinc- 
tion is obvious. 

5. As to the boast you made of the advantages which Protest- 
ant countries possess in consequence of reading the bible, I regret 
as much as you can, that they are only the offspring of a fruitful 
imagination. Germany, Geneva, England, the reformed churches 
in France and Holland, exhibit the necessary consequences of the 


CONTROVERSY. 


171 


Protestant rule of faith. In most of these countries, infidelity is 
preached from the pulpit, aud from the bible itself. The principle 
of that rule has a silent, but progressive and certain tendency to- 
wards infidelity. Nightingale, a Protestant, admits this — and adds 
‘that there is no way to prevent it,’ as long as you admit the prin- 
ciple of private interpretation. In Germany, says the Scottish 
Episcopal Magazine for 1822, ‘ many of the clergy — consider Chris- 
tianity as a vulgar superstition, which may be taught while the 
popular mind requires it, though it is no longer believed by him who 
teaches it.’ Here then is one of your evangelical nations. The 
Rev. Mr. Rose, a Protestant, in his sermon before the University 
of Cambridge, ascribes this state of religion to the right of private 
interpretation, and urges ‘ the wisdom and necessity of restraining 
it.’ He says, that ‘ among the German divines it is a favorite doc- 
trine, that it is impossible there could have been a miracle !’ Such 
are the blessings resulting from the Protestant rule of faith ! When 
Jesus cured the man with the withered hand, he merely, says the 
Protestant Professor Paulus, ‘ pulled it into joint. 5 This is the 
glorious consequence of Protestant freethinking ! And Professor 
Shultness explains the cure of the paralytic in the Gospel in the 
following manner. ‘He was, 5 says the Professor, ‘an idle fellow 
w r ho for thirty years had moved neither hand nor foot. Christ ask- 
ed him ironically ‘perhaps thou wouldst be made whole? This 
irony stired him up , he forgot his hypocrisy. 5 This is the privi- 
lege of Protestantism. He judges for himself. 

Mr. Jacob, a Protestant, in his tour, tells us, that ‘even our avow- 
ed Socinians would be considered by the Lutheran and Calvinistic 
clergy of Germany, as equally credulous with the orthodox! 5 

Mr. Haldane (second Review of the British and Foreign Bible 
Society) says, ‘ On the whole, the greatest number of Pastors 
and Professors in the north west and middle parts of Germany, are 
Rational Naturalists; in other words, decided Deists.’ ‘They (Pro- 
testant Christians) are very little better than the heathens, either 
in refined scepticism or gross superstition. 5 ,, Still they work 
by the Protestant rule of faith, and profess to follow ‘ the Bible 
alone. 5 ‘ The Protestant Ministers in France, says the same au- 
thor, are Arians, Socinians, Neologists, and of no fixed opinion 
whatever, as respects the Gospel.’ So much for the Protestant rule 
of faith ! They do not violate. The use of the rule warrants them 
in the blasphemous abuse of the Scriptures. If then, these be the 
consequences of the Protestant rule of faith, think you that the 
principle of private interpretation is that which the Son of God ap- 
pointed ‘ to guide us in matters of religion, and to determine dis- 
putes in his church ?’ Reason and experience prove it impossible. 
It is the ‘ delusion of Protestantism ; and its votaries — become its 
victims. It breaks down the barriers of faith, leaves the doctrines 
of Jesus Christ at the mercy of every Christian infidel, or dream- 
ing interpreter of the Bible ; and thus prepares the way, for that 
infidelity, which has already inundated Germany, and even in our 


172 


CONTROVERSY, 


country, has seduced many an orthodox congregation from tire 
Presbyterian church. It caused all the heresies of ancient and mo- 
dern times — and yet you pretend that it is the infallible rule of 
faith, appointed by the Son of God ! Now I beg of you, do not, 
in your answer, pervert all these testimonies and this reasoning into 
an argument used by Mr. Hughes, * against the Bible? It is 
against the ‘delusion’ of Protestantism, by which every individual 
is authorised to make the Bible say just whatever he pleases that 
Mr. Hughes is arguing. 

How different is the Catholic rule, by which the Pastors of the 
church in every country under the sun, teach the same identical 
doctrines ! This alone, considered with due reflection, is enough 
to show that it is not a human, but a divine rule. It is the opposite 
of the principle which has divided Protestants into such a multitude 
of sects and schisms, from the high church Episcopalians, down 
through all the moods and tenses of sectarian guess-work at the 
meaning of the Bible, until they arrive at the condition of Protest- 
ant Germany, where they teach Deism from its pages, and this, (let 
it be particularly remembered) without violating the iota of the 
Protestant rule of faith. 

You may say that infidelity has made ravages also in Catholic 
countries ; but you will observe in doing so, its advocates throw off 
the mask, rebel against their rule of faith , do not preach Deism in 
the name of Jesus Christ himself. In Catholic countries infidels 
pride themselves on being the children of philosophy: in Protest- 
ant nations, as Germany, Geneva, Scotland and elsewhere, they are 
the legitimate descendants of the Protestant rule of faith. You tell 
them that the Bible, interpreted by each individual for himself, is 
the only rule. They interpret the Bible, therefore, and discover, 
or imagine that they discover, that the Bible teaches neither mys- 
tery nor miracle, and the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is not a 
doctrine of that book. Then you call them infidels, for denying 
that divinity, whilst they charge you with superstition and idola- 
try for admitting it. Who shall decide between you ? Appeal to 
the public teaching and belief — the tradition of the church ? But 
this neither of you admit. You judge for yourselves. How then 
will you be able to save this fundemental doctrine of Christianity ? 
But you have said in your letter, that ‘if men will pervert the true 
meaning of the Bible, there is no remedy on earth/ Now if pri- 
vate interpretation be the right of all, who is to determine what is 
the * true meaning’ of the Bible? Your Presbyterian forefathers 
interpreted the Bible differently from you, so that it was found ne- 
cessary, some fifty years ago, as you tell us, that certain * offensive 

E assages,’ should be ‘ solemnly rejected’ from the standards. They 
ad mistaken the ‘ true meaning , 1 it seems. All other denomina- 
tions differ from you in their interpretation of the Bible. Then 
according to you, they have ‘ perverted the true meaning.’ But 
pray, are all denominations except yourselves dishonest and insin - 
cere ? O ! what an unhappy state of contradictions and inconsis- 
tencies must Protestants find themselves in! 


CONTROVERSY. 


m 


If the Bible alone be the rule of faith — and every sincere man is 
capable of understanding it — away with your human teachings, your 
creeds, articles, commentaries on the Scriptures, catechisms , sermons, 
extinguish ‘ your tapers’ since they cannot ‘ help the sun to shine.’ 
God speaks infallibly and plainly, you say, in the Scriptures. Why 
then do Protestant ministers receive large salaries for telling the 
people what God says ? On what title can those salaries be receiv- 
ed ? — where is the equivalent? If the Bible is plain and obvious 
in its meaning, as you pretend, then furnish them with Bibles, and 
teach them to read. But do not interpose with your fallible human 
teachings between their minds, and the infallible teachings of 
the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures. 

But, Rev. Sir, Protestants themselves furnish evidence on every 
side, that their rule of faith is a £ delusion.’ 1 need not remind 
you of Dr. Milner’s unguarded testimony, in the case of Mr. Dun- 
can, quoted in my last letter. The Rt. Rev. Dr. Marsh, a Protes- 
tant, says, (Inquiry, p. 4 .) * the poor, who constitute the bulk of 
mankind, cannot, without assistance understand, the Scripture .’ Dr. 
Balgua, a Protestant, (discourses, page 257) tells us, that we might 
as well expect them ‘ to enter into the depths of criticism, of logic 
or scholastic divinity — to compute an eclipse, or decide between the 
Cartesian and Newtonian Philosophy.’ Burk, a Protestant, says, 
(Vol. 10. p. 2. Lond. Edit. 1818.) ‘The Scripture is no one sum- 
mary of doctrines digested, in which a man could not mistake his 
way ; it is a most venerable, but a most multifarious collection of 
the records of the divine economy ; a collection of an infinite vari- 
ety of cosmogony, theology, history, prophecy, psalmody, morality, 
apologue, allegory, legislation, ethics, carried through different 
books of different authors, at different times, for different ends and 
purposes'.’ Paley, a Protestant, says, [Philos, p. 40. Lond. Edit. 
1819 ] speaking of the Scriptures, ‘it is evident they cannot be un- 
derstood without study and preparation. The language must be 
learned, the various writings which these volumes contain, must 
be carefully compared with one another, and with themselves. 
The qualifications necessary for such researches, demand, it is con- 
fessed, a degree of leisure, and a kind of education inconsistent 
with the exercise of any other profession.’ And yet, according 
to Mr. Breckinridge, and the Protestant rule of faith, the fishermen 
of Cape May, and the inhabitants of the Jersey Pines, are perfect- 
ly ‘ qualified’ to understand them ! ! But still they do well to have 
a minister, if they can pay him who will treat them every Sabbath 
to an essay of human teaching, and fallible interpretation. And no 
matter what sect he may belong to, the poor people are astonished 
to find, that he and the Bible speak exactly the same doctrine — 
even they will hug the Protestant ‘ delusion.’ and imagine that they 
follow the pure word of God, the Bible alone. 

What surprises me, however, is, that you attempt to make the 
fathers of the Catholic Church speak as advocates of the Protestant 
principle of belief. When they recommend the reading of the 


174 


CONTROVERSY. 


Scriptures, it is to be understood that they recommend it accord- 
ing to the interpretation of the Church. But I defy you, in a sin- 
gle instance, to show that they held the Scriptures alone , as £ a rule 
of faith.’ Whenever, therefore, you quote the word ‘alone/ as 
the expression of the fathers, look, I pray you, at the text, and 
see whether they used it. In this way you will find your mistake, 
or the mistake of those from whom you copy. The Protestant 
rule of faith was the principle of the heretics, in the time of the 
fathers ; — but they, themselves, followed the rule of the Catholic 
church. St. Angustine says, ‘the church/ [speaking of baptism] 

‘ the divine authority commends, and, as it cannot deceive us, he 
who fears to be imposed on under the obscurity of the present 
question will consult the church .’ [Contr. Oresc. L. 1. T. vii. p. 
168.] ‘ Do thou run to the tabernacle of God ; hold fast to the 

Catholic church ; do not depart from the rule of faith, and thou 
shalt be protected in the tabernacle from the contradiction of 
tongues. Enar, iii. in Fal. 30. T. viii. p, 74, 

St. Jerome, f The church to which you adhere, is that, which, 
having been founded by the apostles, continues to the present day. 
Adver. Lucif. T. 1. p. 627. 

St. Epipham, ‘ There is a royal way, which is the church, and 
the road of truth. But each of these heresies, deserting the royal 
way, turning to the right and to the left, trusting to error, is car- 
ried away, so as to keep within no bounds. Therefore, ye ser- 
vants of God, and children of the church, who follow a sure rule 
of faith, and walk in the way of truth, take care that you be not 
deceived by inconsistent discourses of lying sects.’ Hcer. xlix. t. 
1. p. 504. 

St. Athanasius. Let us again consider, from the earliest period, 
the tradition, the doctrine, and faith of the Catholic Church, which 
God first delivered, the Apostles proclaimed, and the succeeding 
fathers fostered and preserved. ‘On these authorities the Church 
is founded , and whoever falls from her communion, neither is, nor 
can be, called a Christian.’ Epist. ad. serap. T. 1, part 2. p. 
676. And yet you quoted him in favor of the Protestant rule ! ! 

Origin. ‘ As there are many who think they believe w r hat 
Christ taught, and as some of these differ from others, it becomes 
necessary that all should profess that doctrine which came down 
from the Apostles, and now continues in the church. That alone 
is truth, which in nothing differs from what is thus delivered.’ 
Pref. lib. 1. Periach. T. 1. p. 47. I could fill a volume, Rev. Sir, 
with similar testimonies from the fathers of the first five centuries: 
— and yet you take up an expression of theirs, commendatory of 
- the Scriptures, tack the word ‘ alone,’ to it, and thus pretend that 
they were advocates of the Protestant rule of faith ! 

Does not their language and practice, living so soon after the 
times of Christ and his apostles, form the best interpretation of the 
meaning of the sacred text itself? Does it not correspond with 
the words of St. Paul, calling the church ‘ the pillar and ground of 


Controversy. 


ike truth.’ lTim. iii. 14, 15. ‘Now I beseech you brethren, to 
mark them that cause dissentions and offences contrary to the doc- 
trine which you have learned, and to avoid them.’ Rom. xvi. 17. 
And again, ‘ other sheep I have^ that are not of this fold 5 them 
also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be 
one fold, imd one shepherd.’ John x. 16. ‘Now I beseech you 
brethren that you speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms 
among you.’ 1 Cor. i* 10. Again, ‘He that heareth you, hear- 
eth me.’ Luke x. 16. ‘ Faith then [mark this] cometh by hear- 

ing, and hearing, by the word of Christ,’— i. e. preaching the Gos- 
pel. Rom. x. 17. ‘ He that knoweth God, heareth us ; — he 

that is not of God, heareth us not ; by this we know the spirit of 
truth, and the spirit of error . 5 1 John iv. 6. Finally, ‘ Go ye 
therefore,’ said Jesus Christ himself ‘ teach all nations — and lo, I 
am with you always, even till the end of the world.’ Matt, 
xxviii. 19. 

It is thus, Rev. Sir, that the ‘ ploughshare of reason, evidence 
and argument, drives through the radical ‘ delusion’ of Protestant- 
ism ; which, because it is a‘ delusion,’ you are unable to defend. 

* Reason!’ She pronouncing it a complete absurdity to say that 
every man is able to interpret a book such as Burk rightly describes 
the Bible to be. And the blasphemies which the Protestant rule 
of faith has extracted from the sacred volume, confirm the judg- 
ment of reason on the matter. ‘Evidence!’ Look at your un- 
happy divisions on the most fundamental doctrines ! ‘ Argument !’ 

Like the 'lever of Archimedes, you cannot get a place to rest on! 
If you look to antiquity for * your rule of faith,’ you will, indeed, 
find it — among the Menachaeans, Palagians, Eutychians, Arians, 
&c. But not among the Fathers of the Catholic church. As to 
Scripture, although by the Protestant principle, you can explain 
the miracle of the withered arm, by calling it the mere ‘jerking 
into place,’ of a dislocated limb, as they do in Germany ; still you 
will hardly find in it a warrant for the principle of its own de- 
struction, viz: the Protestant rule of faith. 

As you appeal to Bishop Kenrick’s mercy, on the ‘warning 
against reading this controversy,’ — I shall allow him to have mercy 
on you, and shall pursue the matter no farther. The public are 
pretty well satisfied as to the real state of the case. The charge 
was, from first to last a silly fabrication, although I do not suppose 
you were its author. It would have been honorable for you, how- 
ever, to have retracted, or explained it, as soon as you discovered 
the mistake. Yours, &e. 


Jno. Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY- NO- XVI 


RULE OF FAITH. 

Philadelphia , May 17, 1833. 

"To the Rev* John Hughes* 

Sir , — One of the ends of the infallible rule of faith, which, 
(as you have agreed,) was established by Christ, is ‘ to determine 
disputes in His church *’ In my last letter, among other arguments, 
I dwelt at large upon this, that the method of determining dis- 
putes in the church of Rome is anti-scriptural and anti-christian, 
and therefore not the infallible rule of faith established by Christ . 
In support of this proposition, the bloody persecutions of your 
church, became a subject of legitimate inquiry and of direct proof* 
The force of the proof against your rule, consisted in the fact, that 
these nefarious persecutions and massacres were legalized by the 
church of Rome. It was shown from your own standard-writers, 
who had received the sanction of the popes themselves, that the 
burning of heretics, that public persecutions, and the indiscrimi- 
nate massacre of heretics was held to be, not only the' right, but 
the duty of the church: that the inquisition was established by the 
pope ; that he was its centre and head for the whole world, and 
that the Inquisitors were no more than his vicars. And now, sir, 
how do you meet these overwhelming facts ? By the comprehen- 
sive and magical reply, that these standard-authors (and of course 
the popes who approved what they said) were entirely mistaken, 
— that it was a mere matter of opinion with them, not at all a doc- 
trine, and that they, not Mr. Hughes and his holy church, ‘must 
be responsible for their opinions.’ Thus, with David Hume, the 
stubborn existence of matter itself was a mere idea, when it stood 
in the way of his system. The world was only a circular idea: 
man only a walking and garrulous idea ; and so the laws of your 
church, by which ‘Infallible Councils’ decreed the destruction of 
innumerable heretics, was only an ecclesiastical idea, and the blood, 
which flowed in torrents under her maternal tenderness and tutel- 
ary care, was only a rubicund idea ! It seems, however, that his- 
tory, faithful tell-tale history, extorts from you the confession, that 
Roman Catholics have been guilty of some of the blood which I 
have charged upon them. But then, you reply, Protestants have 
persecuted too, and in proof of it you give us several columns ol 
farrago on the prosecutions of High-Churchmen and Presbyterians 
Lutherans, Huguenots, &c. &c. and present to us in bold relief 
a distorted history of Luther and Calvin, and Knox, and Wesley 


CONTROVERSY. 


177 


&c. The amount then, of your defence, is simply this, if Roman 
Catholics have erred and sinned in this way, Protestants have done 
the same. I reply, we admit that in a comparatively small measure, 
Protestants. have done the same; and we condemn it, we renounce 
it, we mourn over it, we pronounce every such act criminal, every 
doctrine defending it false, and every council, or ecclesiastical body 
of men, decreeing such doctrines or acts fallible, and so far guilty 
too. And if you, sir, would be candid and consistent, and would 
allow the same of your councils and your popes, truth would be 
the result. But never, no never ! for what then would become 
of your boasted infallibility ! But you have put it in my power 
to bring this question to a speedy and final issue. You say in your 
last letter, ‘For you will observe that Catholics, as such, are re- 
sponsible only for the doctrines of the church, and not for the pri- 
vate opinion of her members. Show me then the decree of any 
council, or the bull of any pope, proposing persecution as a part of 
our religion, and let that document be the proof of your charge.* 
And now for the ‘ documents .’ ‘Bull of Pope Innocent VIII. for 
the extirpation of the Vaudois, given to Albert de Capitaneis, 
liis legate and Commissary General for the expedition in 1477.’ 
(The original of this bull, with several others, is keptih the library 
of the University of Cambridge.) 

‘ Innocent the Bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our 
Well beloved son Albertus de Capitaneis — we have thought fit to 
appoint you by these presents, our Nuncio and commissary of the 
Apostolic See, for this cause of God and of the faith, in the do- 
minions of our dear son, Charles, Duke of Savoy, &c. to the in- 
tent that you may cause the said Inquisitor, (Blasius de Mont- 
Royal) to be admitted to the free exercise of his office — and we, 
by these presents, grant you a full and entire license and authority 
to call, and instantly to require, by yourself, or by any other person 
or persons, all the Archbishops and Bishops in the Duchy in Dau- 
phiny, and the parts adjacent, and to command them, in virtue of 
holy obedience, together with the venerable brethren our ordi- 
naries, or their vicars, or the officials-general* in the cities and 
diocesses, wherein you may see meet, to proceed to the premises, 
and execute the office which we have enjoined you, and with the 
aforesaid Inquisitors, that they may be assisting to you in the 
things mentioned, and with one consent proceed along with you to 
the execution of them : that they take arms against the said Wal- 
denses and other heretics, and with common councils and measures 
crush and treat them as venemous serpents. 

‘ And if you think it expedient that all the Faithful in those 
places should carry the salutary cross on their hearts and their gar- 
ments, to animate them to fight resolutely against these heretics, 
— to cause to preach and publish the crusade by the proper preach- 
ers of the word of God, and to grant unto those who take the cross 
and fight against these heretics, or who contribute thereunto, the 
privilege 0 / gaining a pierary indulgence, and the remission of all 


CONTROVERSY, 


JbS 

their sins once in their life , and lilceivise at the point of death , by 
virtue of the commission given you above, — and likewise to dispense 
with them as to any irregularity they may be chargeable with in 
divine things, or by any apostacy, and to agree and compound 
with them as to goods which they may have clandestinely or by 
stealth acquired, or which they dishonestly or doubtfully possess, 
applying them only for the support of the expedition for termi- 
nating heretics — in the mean time to choose, appoint and confirm, 
in our name, and in the name of the Romish church, one or more 
captains or leaders of the war, over the crossed soldiers — to grant 
further to every one of them a permission to seize and freely possess 
the goods of the heretics whether moveable or immoveable — more- 
over, to deprive all those who do not obey your admonitions and 
mandates, of whatever dignity, state, decree, order or pre-eminence 
they be, ecclesiastics of their dignities, offices and benefices, and 
secular persons of their honors, titles, fiefs and privileges, if they 
persist in their disobedience and rebellion — and to fulminate all 
sorts of censures according as justice, rebellion or disobedience shall 
appear to you to require. 5 

Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, in the year of the incarnation of 
our Lord, 1177, the 5th of the Kal. of May, in the third year of 
our pontificate. 

Here then, is the ‘bull of a pope’ in the name of the church of 
Rome, as well as in his ‘own name,’ legalizing a ferocious war of 
extermination; calling Arch-Bishops and Bishops,’ &c. &c. ‘in 
virtue of holy obedience,’ and ‘ all the faithful to exterminate here- 
tics by arms,’ ‘and the proper preachers of the word of God,’ to 
preach this crusade, and excite the people to destroy heretics ; and 
here, with the keys of heaven in his hand, is the pope ‘ giving a 
plenary indulgence and the remission of all their sins for one year, 
and at death,’ as the reward of their crimes in shedding the blood 
of innumerable men, women and children, because they did not 
think with them! Is this too ‘a feudal’ bull? Is this too ‘an 
opinion, ’ only, of the pope? And now, have you not some subtle 
evasion by which the school of Loyola has taught you to slip the 
toils of truth ? 

But we will pass from the bulls of popes, to the * decrees of coun- 
cils.’ Bellarmine, (as quoted in my last letter, under the head, 
that ‘it was a duty of the church to burn heretics,’ book 3. c. 21. of 
the Laity) proves it * thirdly, by the laws of the church.’ He 
refers us to divers chapters, as that ‘on excommunication,’ ‘on 
heretics,’ &c. &c. where ‘the church decrees that incorrigible 
heretics should be delivered to the civil power that merited pun- 
ishment may be inflicted on them.’ He proceeds — ‘the council of 
Constance also condemned the sentiments of John Huss, and hand- 
ed over the said John, with Jerome of Prague, to the civil power, 
and they were both burned to death.’ This author then expressly 
tells us that ‘ the laws of the church,’ direct the destruction of 
heretics. Is it not then a doctrine that the church has a right to 


CONTROVERSY. 


make and inflict such laws? He appeals also to the infallible 
council of Constance, and instances their decrees, in the case of 
John Huss, and Jerome of Prague. Here then, is one council. 
Again, the decree of the 4th Lateran council, which was extracted 
at large, into my letter, (No. 8.) is a living monument to this doc- 
trine of your church. In your letter (No. 9) you tried to explain 
that fearful decree into a * feudal’ act, not relating to doctrines at 
all. But in letter (No. 10) I showed that it did relate to doctrine 
by the very words of the decree. You made no reply, — you gave 
up the defence, and there it lies staring you in the face, and the 
voice of blood cries to you from the ground ! Once more. — The 
council of the 3d Lateran, a general council held at Rome, under 
Pope Alexander III. in the year 1179 — 27th Canon, decreed as 
follows : ‘ As the blessed Leo says, although ecclesiastical discipline, 
content with sacerdotal judgment, does not extract bloody ven- 
geance ; yet is it assisted by the constitution of Catholic princes, 
in order that men, while they fear that corporal punishment may 
be inflicted upon them, may often seek a salutary remedy. On 
this account, because in Gascony, Albi, in the parts of Toulouse, 
and in other regions, the accursed perverseness of heretics, vari- 
ously denominated Cathari or Patarenas or Publicans , or distin- 
guished by sundry other names, has so prevailed, that they now 
no longer exercise their wickedness in private, but publicly man- 
ifest their error, and seduce into their communion the simple and 
infirm. We therefore subject to a curse both themselves and their 
defenders, and their harborers ; and, under a curse, we prohibit all 
persons from admitting them into their houses, or receiving them 
upon their lands, or cherishing them, or exercising any trade with 
them. Moreover, we enjoin all the faithful, for the remission of 
their sins, that they manfully oppose themselves to such calami- 
ties, and that they defend the Christian people against them, by 
arms. And let their goods be confiscated, and let it be freely 
permitted to princes to reduce men of such a stamp to slavery. We 
likewise, from the mercy of God, and relying upon the authority 
of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, relax two years of enjoined 
penance to those faithful Christians, who, by the council of the 
bishops or other prelates, should take up arms to subdue them by 
fighting against them ; or, if such Christians shall spend a longer 
time in the business, we leave it to the descretion of the bishops to 
grant them a longer indulgence. As for those who shall fail to 
obey the admonition of the bishop to this effect, we inhibit them 
from a participation of the body and blood of the Lord. Mean- 
while, those, who in the ardor of faith shall undertake the just 
labor of subduing them, we receive into the protection of the 
church ; granting to them the same privileges of security in pro- 
perty and in person, as are granted to those who visit the holy 
sepulchre.’ Labb. Concil. Sacrosam, Yol. 10.“p. 1522, 1523. 

Here then, is a third instance of an Infallible Council decreeing 
the prosecution and destruction of heretics. And more than this, 


ISO 


CONTROVERSY. 


we see, 1st, that ‘ the remission of sins,’ is promised to the act, and 
2d, on the other hand those who fail to obey the admonition [to 
take up arms against them,] are inhibited from a participation of 
the body aud blood of our Lord ! Did not this decree relate to 
morals, to duty, to doctrine ? Was it not by an infallible council?’ 
How then can you shun the irresistable conclusion, that your 
church, on principle, by standing law, decrees the destruction of 
heretics ? Either then, give up infallibility, or candidly own that 
your rule of faith carries force, persecution and death itself, as one 
of its engines to settle disputes in the church of Christ? 

But the question is decided and sealed up by the creeds of Pius 
the IV. which binds the whole communion of the church of Rome. 
In it, it is expressly declared, T promise and swear true obedience 
to the Roman Bishop, the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the 
apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ.’ 

‘ I also profess, and undoubtedly receive, all other things deliver- 
ed, defined, and declared by the sacred canons, and general coun- 
cils, and particularly by the Holy Council of Trent; and likewise, 
I also condejmn, reject and anathematize all things contrary thereto, 
and all heresies, whatsoever, condemned, rejected and anathema- 
tized by the church,* 

‘ This true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved, which 
I now freely profess, and truly hold, I promise, vow, and swear 
most constantly, to hold and profess the same whole and entire, 
with God’s assistance to the end of my life.’ 

Then every Roman Catholic receives all the things, delivered, 
defined and declared by the sacred canons and General Coun- 
cils, and condemns, rejects and anathematizes all things contrary 
thereto. The decrees I have recited are part of your faith ! And 
all these canons and decrees of councils, taken collectively, make 
the 1 true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved.’ How 
then, can a true Catholic reject these decrees ? Will you, Sir, say 
they were not infallible ? Can you deny that they are a part of 
the received faith and doctrine of the church of Rome? Will you 
say you are not bound by them? 

In fine, Bishop Walmesley, [Gen. Hist, of the Ch. chap. 9. pp. 
224] thus speaks: ‘ When a dogmatical point is to be determined, 
the Catholic church speaks but once ; and her decree is irrevocable; 
the solemn determinations of general councils have remained un- 
altered, and will ever be so.’ Thus also, the Bishop of Aire [Di- 
cuss. Amic. vol. 2. pp. 624] declares that * the principles of the 
Catholic church, once defined, are irrevocable, She herself is im- 
mutably chained by bonds which at no future period can she ever 
rend asunder. 

I do not wonder then, though I much regret it, that you lose 
your temper and sense of propriety with your cause. You had 
been taught to believe by the submissive adulation of a few partial 
and ignorant devotees, that the Protestant religion was a system of 
frailty and error, through which your mighty ‘plough-share,’ could 


CONTROVERSY. 


181 


drive perdition at will ; and like the unthinking Pheeton, you 
sprang with unhappy ardor into a seat which you could neither 
fill nor guide. While you share the fate, you shall inherit the 
fame of Phaeton. 

Hie citus est Phccton, currus auriga paterni 

Quem si non tenuit, magnis tamen excidit aucis. 

Shall I be esteemed speaking too strongly, when I confirm these 
remarks by a return to your sad dilemma, in the case of the Jewish 
Sanhedrim. You had appealed in letter No, 11. to the method 
of deciding controversies under the Jewish dispensation, as an il- 
lustration and defence of your own rule. From Josephus, as well 
as from the Old Testament, you adduced ‘the High Priest as guard- 
ing the laws and determining controversies;’ and holding to view, 
the High Priest and his Sanhedrim as a model of the pope and 
council, you asked with much confidence, ‘ did the Savior of 
men appoint a different principle whereby to determine disputes in 
his church ?’ ‘ This is the principle appointed by God in the old 

law ; why should it be different in the new ? In letter No. 12, 
to which I refer the reader, it is most palpably proved by your own 
admission, that ‘the Judge of controversy,’ to whom you alluded, 
was fallible, or else, that Jesus Christ was justly crucified. See- 
ing the precipice to which you had brought your infallible rule, 
you are driven to the absurdity of admitting, that one infallible tri- 
bunal was superseded before another was established ; and thus to 
save your cause, you make a fatal chasm in the church of God, 
between the two dispensations. You were also driven to admit 
that infallible tribunals ‘may be superseded when it is proved to 
them that they shut their eyes against the evidence of the truth;’ 
consequently, your church may be superseded. And farther, it 
was shown that what your admissions established, the Apostle Paul 
in his Epistle to the Roman church, lltli chap, distinctly declares, 
viz. that if the Roman church continue not faithful, ‘she shall be 
cut off.’ In your last letter you abandon the defence of this whole 
ground with the following sentence, * you have made me a fellow 
conspirator with the Jews in condemning the Son of God.’ And 
it is, most truly, just as you have said. But then, Sir, it was your 
argument, your principle which led you to so disastrous a result! 
and yet, strange as it may seem, you make not a single attempt at 
the support of your cause, from this destructive consequence, in a 
letter covering one page of a newspaper. And can it be, that such 
a defender of his faith still talks of ‘ the plough-share of destruction * 
and has time and heart to fill up column after column with scandal, 
and misrepresentation ? Can you be believed or vindicated by any 
honest mind, when, instead of grappling with an argument, you 
dare to say that I have ‘added’ and ‘ omitted words ’ ‘ changed punc- 
tuation? &,e. and by so doing, ‘made the champions of the Cath- 
olic church speak the language of Protestant delusion, which they 
never uttered ! And that, in every instance in which you have 


182 


CONTROVERSY. 


had time to examine/ 'the quotations’ I have made, ‘ have been 
found to be falsified ! Where are the quotations on burning here- 
tics? where the pope’s attack on the freedom of the press ? where 
the crowd of unnoticed evidences I have adduced? And why have 
you not had time to examine one of these? You have descended 
in the use of such language to a level, from which I hope Christian 
principle, self-respect, and a decent regard to the opinions of others, 
will always preserve me. But I feel called in duty, publicly to 
charge you with injurious misrepresentations, and to challenge 
from you, proof of your statements, or an apology for your insolence. 

Let us now summarily review your arguments for the infidelity 
of your church. The ground taken by Mr. Hughes is that ‘ the 
Bible alone/ cannot be the true rule of faith ; but that it must have 
‘ an infallible interpreter/ ‘ that the church of Rome* is that infalli- 
ble interpreter of Scripture/ and ‘that private interpretation is the 
radical delusion of Protestantism, from which all heresies have 
sprung.’ Of course |before you can interpret or understand the bi- 
ble, you must go with it to the infallible church. But the question 
arises, which is the infallible church? For there are many churches. 
And is there any infallible church ? For it is not defined that there 
is any such thing. How then shall we know ? Mr. Hughes says, 
‘ I prove it with the Scripture.’ (See letter 15, 3d head, and other 
letters!) But it is replied, we cannot prove any thing from the 
Scripture, without the help of this very church we are hunting for. 
Here then at the threshold we are undone on Mr. Hughes’ plan; 
for we dare not interpret the bible without the true church , and 
we know not which is the true church until we interpret the bible 
and find it out. Here Mr. M’Guire fell. Here Bellarmine and 
Dr. Milner find, and leave an irreparable breach. In this ‘ slough 
of despond/ Mr. Hughes began to sink and he fled back, and never, 
for three months have we been able to recall him to the discussion 
of this radical, and with him ruinous question. 

The obvious result is, that infallibility is a figment, except as 
found in the bible itself, as its own interpreter ; and we must resort 
to private interpretation, or shut the bible and never find the church! 

2d. But Mr. Hughes rallies on new ground and says, ‘ The au- 
thority of the church is a fact that can be established without the 
Scripture.’ * Even in my last letter I showed that the authority of 
the church is a fact that can be established with, or without the 
Scripture.’ Again, 2d. I quote it, not as an inspired book, if you 
prefer to take the ground of a Deist, but I quote it, in that case, as 
a historical evidence of the fact, in which sense you will be oblig- 
ed, even as a Deist, to admit its testimony. 3. The history of 
Christianity proves the authority of the church. From the days of 
the Apostles, the church proscribed heresies, — preached the doc- 
trines of Christ to all nations; — determined by a final decision, all 
controversies, — and in all matters of religion exercised supreme au- 
thority. So that the authority of the church is proved with, or 
without, the Scripture. (See Letter XV. 3d head; and Letter XIII. 
Ans. 2d and 3d.) 


Controversy, 


163 


The amount of the argument is, that the church of Rome has al- 
ways exercised this authority, of an infallible teacher ! If this be 
not what you mean, I know not what it is; for without this it is 
nonsense. If this be your meaning, it is the same as saying, if 
you will admit her infallibility, then I will prove it ! But I deny 
it. Again, if you prove to a Deist from the bible as from any oth- 
er document that the church has always exercised authority — what 
then ? The argument is this and no more: — The church has ex- 
ercised authority, therefore she has exercised it. Does her exer- 
cise of authority, prove her infallibility ? By no means. You will 
say it would be vain and nugatory to exercise such authority with- 
out infallibility, therefore she was infallible. But Sir, you beg the 
question again, for the very matter in dispute is whether she was 
infallible ! In a word you pre-suppose her infallible, in order to 
prove her so ! For it is only on the supposition that this infallibil- 
ity exists that the practice of the church (in the exercise of her au- 
thority) can be alledged to prove it. Behold then your irresistible 
logic, your endless circle, — the church has exercised authority to 
decide matters of faith, therefore she is infallible— the church is 
infallible, therefore she has a right to decide matters of faith ! 

3d. There is still another circle, endless and hopeless as the 
last. It is this : that we must look to the church, to tell us what 
is bible, and what is not bible; that is, the authority of the church 
must determine what is the word of God. This you declare with 
sufficient explicitness in the following passage (and elsewhere) in 
the 3d letter, 4th head, * When you say, therefore, that my la- 
tent meaning in all this argument is, that we need the church to 
tell us what is bible and what is not, you express my meaning ex- 
actly, and it is ‘ latent,’ no longer. Of course we must know which 
is the true church, before we can know from her, what is and what 
is not bible. But we are dependent upon the bib*3 for the know- 
ledge of the true church. From it alone can we learn whether 
the Jewish, the Roman, Greek, or Protestant church, be the true 
church. 

When we call on you for the proof that yours is the true church 
you point us to the bible for authority. When we appeal to the 
bible you say, I defy you to prove the bible to be the word of God 
without the authority of the true church. So you prove the church 
by the bible, and the bible by the church. Both cannot be first, 
and both last, and yet they must be so, or your system is destroyed. 
Here then is the circulating syllogism in which the argument for 
infallibility runs its endless round. 

* Libitur et libetur in omne volubilis sevum .’ 

We see, then, how you precipitate the revelation of God into 
the vortex of hopeless Deism, by resting its evidence on ground 
so absurd and untenable. And these are the empty sounds which 
you have for months been ringing and repeating upon your inter- 
minable circle, and from which, [if you have nothing more and 


CONTROVERSY. 


164 

better to say,] mercy to our readers as well as to your cause, crie^ 
out for us to pass to other topics. 

One very striking fact in your discussions, from first to last, is 
the studious care \vith which you have withheld from view the 
true and real Roman Catholic rule of faith* You have made many 
objections to the bible as the only rule, which have been promptly 
met as they appeared ; and when the pressure of accumulating dif- 
ficulties forced you to defend your rule of faith you avowed it in 
this timid, cautious, and partial form — ‘ I believe [in] the holy 
Catholic church.’ On it you founded a single argument from the 
apostolical succession, which even your friends and admirers must 
consider you as having entirely abandoned, after a very oblique 
effort at its defence. Let me not here repeat but refer the read- 
er to the examination of this subject contained in letters No. 6 and 
8. But the excerpt from the creed ‘ I believe [in] the holy 
Catholic thurch,’ Was surely a very side*wise announcement of 
your rule of faith. In my first letter fourteen weeks ago, I stated 
your rule, and our’s side by side, your’s being extracted from the 
decrees* &c. of the council of Trent ; and I then called on you for 
a defence of its various and radical defects which were there sum- 
marily stated* Whatever may have been your promises and the 
demands of your cause to the contrary, you have to this hour left 
them out of view. 

For example. In the decree of the council of Trent, 4th session, 

' on the canon of scripture,’ among ‘ the sacred books,’ are placed 
* 1st and 2d Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesias- 
ticus, Baruch, 1st and 2d Maccabes,’ making with the supplement 
to Esther, more than one hundred and sixty-five chapters, and it 
is added ‘ whosoever shall not receive as sacred and canonical all 
these books, and every part of them, as they are commonly read 
in the Catholic church, and are contained in the old Latin vulgate 
edition, let him be accursed!’ Against these books I have made 
the most serious charges, and am prepared to substantiate them; 
and I have distinctly called you to defend their claims and charac- 
ter, and your church for bringing them into the canon. But you 
are pleased to pass by these charges and calls, and with some re- 
marks and authorities on their canonicity [not reaching within sev- 
eral hundred years of the apostles*] you pass the whole subject by, 
and talk about ‘prejudices,’ against these books. This large, this 
neglected, and important rule of your faith, has called aloud for a 
defender, but you have not regarded the call. 

2d. Again in the same degree it is said * that truth and discipline 
are contained both in written books and unwritten traditions which 
have come down to us.’ It is added that the council ‘ both receiv- 
ed and reverenced with equal piety and veneration [as the written 
books] ‘ the aforesaid traditions;’ and finally ‘whosoever shall 
knowingly and deliberately despise the aforesaid traditions, let him 
be accursed.’ 

Here then, is another multifarious indefinable, and undefined, 


CONTROVERSY. 


165 


yet obligatory part of your rule of faith. In my first letter I also 
assailed these. Will you abandon them as the forlorn baggage of 
the camp? Shall your silence be considered conscious safety, con- 
scious Victory, or conscious indefensibility ? 

3d. In the creed of Pious the IV. which condenses into a sym- 
bol, the decrees of the council of Trent, and in binding every 
Roman Catholic, this restrictive oath, is taken, ‘Nor will I take 
or inherit it, [the sacred scriptures] otherwise than according to 
the unanimous consent of the fathers.’ 

N ec earn unquam, nisi juxta una animum consensum patrum acci- 
piam, et interprefabor. Thus, with all our imaginary infallibility, 
a body of fallible men, who did not unite as Councils, or Popes, 
but as private men,— *who have no unanimous consent; who con- 
tradict each other, and you abundantly; and who the higher you 
rise in antiquity, the more they condemn you— -these men are as- 
sumed as your guides. All never agree; if they did they are falli- 
ble interpreters of the word of God. If you follow some, you are 
sure to contradict others; and many of them are now excepted too, 
and condemned by your standard writers; and yet without * unan- 
imous consent,’ your rule is null and void. Such a rule you can 
never apply, — you constantly violate, yea, and you do not attempt 
to defend. 

You- have very often, had the hardihood to say, that the Bible 
alone as the rule of faith has caused all the heresies — and that it 
was not the abuse, but the legitimate use of the Protestant rule 
which did this evil. For so sweeping and adventurous a charge, 
it is reasonable to expect some proof. And as you state these pro- 
positions with so much self-confidence, will not your readers after 
so long a time look for some evidence ? I put you therefore on 
your proof, or on your character — and call on you to sustain these 
profane declarations — or else yourself a defamer of God’s holy word, 
and a compeer of those who denounce the Bible. For however 
you attempt to palliate such remarks, it must be apparent that they 
put you in the ranks of the Deist and the scoffer. 

Your statements on the religious degeneracy of Protestants in 
Germany, if we take them without qualification, (as I regret to say, 
can seldom be done with your statements,) certainly show that Ger- 
many needs another Reformation. But you give us not one word 
of proof that the free and self-interpreting use of the Bible has done 
this evil. 

If there be force in such references, how will you account for the 
present state of Spain, of Portugal, and of Rome herself, where 
yours has not only been the supreme, but the exclusive religion ? 
There for ages no rival has existed, and no rule but yours has work- 
ed ! How do these countries come out from the hands of the Pa- 
pacy ? Let us see : ‘ The Inquisition was restored with its ancient 
plenitude of authority,’ (from 1811 to 18*20) ‘ and among its first 
acts were a publication of a long list of prohibited books, and a de- 
cree that all prints and pictures as well as books should be subject- 
7 


|86 


CONTROVERSY. 


ed to its previous censorship.’ — Brewster’s Encyclopedia. Art, 
Spain. Again, ‘ The sale of the bulls of Papal pardon and indul- 
gence produces an immense revenue in Spain. That the Spaniards 
as a people are ignorant, supremely ignorant, it is impossible to 
dissemble ; but this comes from the control of the clergy, who ex- 
ert themselves to maintain that ignorance to which they are in- 
debted for their power.’— A Year in Spain. Vol. 1], pp. 237, 360. 

‘ The Ecclesiastical establishment of Portugal is the moral blight 
and overwhelming curse of the country, from north to south, and 
from east to west. A crafty priesthood intentionally keep the low- 
est orders of the people under a degraded superstition.’ Portugal 
in 1828, pp. William Young, Esq. p. 38. ‘The re-institution of 
the Inquisition of the Jesuits, and Monastic orders in the 19th cen- 
tury is a retrograde step in the progress of society.’ — Rome in the 
19th century, Vol. III. pp. 174. 

‘ In a long succession of ages they (the people of Rome) have 
tyeen the successive sport of Roman, Barbarian, Goth, Vandal, 
pope and Gaul. But freedom has revisited the seven hills no more, 
and glory and honor, and virtue, and propriety, one by one, have 
followed in her train. Long annals of tyranny, of unexampled 
vice, of misery and increasing luxury and moral turpitude, record 
the rapid progress of Rome’s debasement.’ — Rome in the 19th cen-? 
tury, Vol. I. pp. 298. 

‘ Superstition prevails not only in Rome but in all the states of 
the church. A government wholly pacific like that of Rome, might 
console ifself for political nullity, by encouraging and protecting let- 
ters ; bqt an intellectual deadness seems to pervade the Roman 
States.’ — -Malte Brun’s Geography, Vol. 7. p. 678, 679. 

‘ There has actually been in Rome a grave and formal trial for 
yvitclicraft in the 19th century ! I begin to think I must be mis- 
taken, and that the world has been pushed back about 300 years ! 
But it is even so. 1 understand that not one miracle happened du- 
ring the whole reign of the French, and that it was not until the 
streets were purified with lustrations of holy water, on the return of 
the Pontiff, tnat they began to operate again. But with the Pon- 
tilf, darkness returned, and the age of Popish miracles revived, 
wittyin this ljttle montl), (30th Ap. 1S17,) three great miracles have 
happened in Rome. The last took place yesterday, when all Rome 
crowded to the capitol, to see an image of the virgin opening her 
eyes. When I behold crowds flocking to kneel before these talking 
and winking Madonnas, I cannot help asking myself if this is real- 
ly the 19th century ?’ — -Rome in the 19th century. 

The practical effects of Romanism in producing and extending 
infidelity, as a matter of history is worthy of an extended notice — 
and we shall not forget it. But now let me ask, whose rule of faith 
it was, jthat wrought all this mischief? In Spain, in Portugal, in 
Rome, there is no religion but your own. Especially in Rome, 
‘our Lord the Pope ’ has all to himself, coffers, letters, (if any) re 
Jigion, both swords, and all the people. As ‘ ignorance is the v\o.‘ 


CONTROVERSY. 


1«7 


ther of devotion ,’ they surely are too ‘ devout’ to 1 think ?’ and it 
would seem, that amongst all their miracles, a holy and enlighten- 
ed man is the greatest ! 

If assertion, without proof, can produce conviction, and a confi- 
dent air in the worst circumstances can recommend a cause, you, 
are surely the most happy and triumphant of all polemics. How 
must it have grieved your Christian readers, and made your office 
frown to see you sporting as you have done with the Redeemer’s 
divinity. You had said that the authority of the church could 
clearly be proved from the Bible alone, and yet, that the cardinal 
doctrine of Christ’s Deity, was wholly incapable of proof from the 
same source ! Now I would here give you the occasion of a fair 
trial of these positions. I would turn aside with you for a season, 
from the subject we are now discussing, to examine before the 
public, the testimony of the Bible on the subject. Then we shall 
put your assertions to the test. But if you think it prudent to 
decline, I hope, that henceforth, literary consistency, if not rever- 
ence for your master, will restrain the expression of such unhah 
lowed and unfounded opinions. 

I regret that room is wantingto recapitulate the various arguments 
which you have left unnoticed ‘ in the rear,’ against your rule of 
faith. I still more regret that my letter has already overrun its 
assigned limits, without enabling me to pass, as I had designed, 
into the interior of the Vatican. But I am not unwilling, for a 
season, to await your pleasure in these matters, if you have any 
thing more to say, which may justly claim a review. 

As Bishop Kenrick, in our late interview, called for the name 
which has so long disturbed you, I now redeem my pledge and 
give it up to you. It was Mr. John Burtt. You mistake me 
wholly when you proffer to me the ‘ mercy of the Bishop and it 
seems you have mistaken him too ! I did not ask ‘ mercy’ for my- 
self or for my esteemed friend : faithful history has taught us what 
are the ‘ tender mercies' of the Mother Church. The Bishop had 
a right to call for this name — you had not, unless future disclo- 
sures show that you have a more immediate connexion with this 
whole matter, than now appears. And now that you have been 
gratified with the name of my author, I have these questions to 
ask you — 

1. Is it not esteemed and treated as a sin, (and made matter for 
.confession) by your clergy, to hear a Protestant minister preach ? 

2. Is not the reading of such Protestant works as Luther, Cal- 
vin, Lord Bacon, Claude, Sir Matthew Hale, Grotius, Locke, Mil- 
ton, Robinson, Saurin, Jeremy Taylor, Young, &c. &c. prohibited 
to Roman Catholics ? 

3. Is not a license requisite in order to read them ? Does not a 
man in reading them without a license, break standing regulations 
and laws of the Church of Rome ? Are not ‘ books of controversy 
between Roman Catholics and Heretics ,’ 1 subject to certain regula- 
tions,’ and ‘ forbidden to be indiscriminately readV 


CONTROVERSY. 


168 

Is not the indiscriminate circulation of the Holy Bible in the vul- 
gar tongue , (i. e. not in the Latin,) declared by the authority of 
your church, productive of more evil than good 1 Is it not required, 
(when you enforce these la\Vs,) that written permission may be got- 
ten before a layman can read it ? I ask an explicit answer to these 
questions . 

If upon examination these things be found to be so, then it will 
appear that even a little credulity, on our part was not a * mortal sin;' 
and that to encourage free enquiry on religious subjects, is a virtual 
renunciation of some of the principles of your * unchangeable 
church. 1 Yours, &c. 

John Breckinridge, 


CONTROVERSY. No. XVII. 


RULE OF FAITII. 

Philadelphia, May 22, 1 83$. 
To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 

Rev. Sir , — Apart from its own divine evidences, there is nothing 
that so much tends to confirm the Catholic in the belief of his reli- 
gion, as the fact that its opponents are obliged either to misrepresent 
the doctrines they assail; — or else to pervert the testimonies, by which 
they attempt to combat them. This fact is attested by the history of 
almost every controversy that has taken place since the commence- 
ment of Protestantism, in the 16th century, not excepting the one in 
which we are now engaged. It was well, and candidly observed, by 
the Rev. Mr. Nigthingale a Protestant clergyman, that ‘from diligent 
inquiry it has been ascertained, that party spirit and prejudice, have 
thrown the most undeserved obloquy upon the religion and practices 
of the Roman Catholics; — in scarcely a single instance has a case 
concerning them been fairly stated, on the channels of history not 
grossly, not to say wickedly, corrupted.’ (All Religions, page 65.) 

Ifthen,asthis Protestant writer testifies, the channels of Protestant 
history have been ‘grossly, not to say wickedly, corrupted,’ it is easy 
to account for the blundering ignorance with which Protestant con- 
troversialists, generally approach the discussion of Catholic doctrine. 
They' will not read our own books — but they derive their impressions 
of our belief, from the distorted portraits which its enemies have drawn. 
The conversion of many Protestants to the church, has been the fre- 
quent consequence when they detected this original dishonesty and 
subsequent deception. The discovery of the misrepresentations and 
falsehoods contained in the writings of Bishop Jewel, produced this 
effect in several distinguished instances. One was Sir Thomas Cop- 
ley — another was Bishop’s own Secretary or Chaplain, who ‘espied 
certain false allegations in his master’s book whilst it was under the 
print in London, whereof advertising him by letter, the other (Jewel) 
commanded, notwithstanding the print to go forward.’ That is com- 
manded these ‘false allegations,’ to be published, even after they had 
been printed out to him! The third was YV. Rainold ‘a professor and 
preacher of the Protestant religion;’ — who ‘fell to read over Mr. Jew- 
el’s book, and did translate some part of it into Latin, but before he 
had passed half over, he found such stutf, as made him grately mis- 
like of the whole rel igion; and so he, leaving his hopes, and commo- 
dities in England, went over the sea,’ &c. (Athense Oxon. Vol. 1. 
No. 174.273.) 

It is true that on his death bed, Jewel, directed his chaplain, John 
Garbrand, ‘to publish to the world, that what he had written he had 
done against his own knowledge and conscience, only to comply with 
the State, and that religion, which it had set up. Albeit, Garbrand 
did not, for fear, publish this so openly as he was charged, yet did he 
23 


190 


CONTROVERSY. 


avouch it to many in Oxford.’ (Dr. Richard Smith’s Prudential Bal - 
ance of Religion, published in 1609, page 54.) 

But why restrict myself to a single testimony — even the illiberal 
Mr. Wix says, that the Catholic religion is ‘caluminated cruelty.’ — 
It is, says Dr. Parr, insulted barbarously.’ ‘No religion, says Nithin- 
gale, is treated so unjustly.’ And Hume declares, that ‘The Protes- 
tants seem to have thought that no truth should be told of the Papists.’ 
The learned Grotius reproaching the Protestant ministers on this head, 
received for reply “that they found it necessary for the public good 
of the Reformed religion.’ Letters to Vossuis) And Vossuis him- 
self in the same correspondence writes, that when he reproached the 
ministers of Amsterdam, they admitted the iniquity of the proceeding, 
‘but, added they, if we leave off such language, our people wili soon 
leave us.’ 

Now, however inexplicable these proceedings may appear to the 
honesty but unreflecting minds of many Protestants, to me they pre- 
sent an obvious solution. The Reformers, as they are called, could 
coin new religions, according to the caprice of the times, and circum- 
stances in which they found themselves. But as they could not 
coin or create truth with the same facility; consequently, they were 
obliged to counterfeit evidence, to sustain the ‘delusion’ which they 
had published, and which the strength of their neck, and the weak- 
ness of their heads, would not allow them to disown or abandon. — 
The mass of Protestants are led to suppose that the Bible give rise 
to the Reformation. But alas! how abundantly is this supposition 
refuted, by the testimony of their own writers. Grey, himself a Pro- 
testant, hits off the history of the English Reformation, in a single 
line— ‘The Gospel light first beamed from Bulien’s eyes.’ It is a 
wicked line I must confess; — and if its author had been a Catholic, I 
should not have quoted it. Frederick the Great of Prussia says, in 
one of his letters, ‘If you reduce the causes of the Reformation to 
their simple principles, you will find that in Germany, it was the 
work of interest; in England, , and in France, the effect of No- 

velty.’ And Baron Starke says, ‘These are facts completely con- 
formable to history. The Reformation owed its success to a variety 
of passions, &c.’ 

From what source, I would ask you, could genuine arguments be 
derived, to support such a religion as this — being indebted to a ‘va- 
riety of passions,’ for its origin, existance, and success ? From the 
Bible? But the religion of the Bible and of Christ had been preach- 
ed, promulgated, believed, and transmitted together with the Bible 
itself, during 1500 years before the Reformation; — and consequently 
this Bible could not belie in its old age, the testimony it had borne to 
the Christian world up to that hour. It would not forsake the Catho- 
lic church, to take sides with Martin Luther, and bear him through a 
quarrel originating in the passion of interest, and ending in the scan- 
dal of schism. Luther, indeed, said that he had discovered a new 
religion in the old Bible — But Calvin said that Luther’s discovery 
was a cheat; that he himself had discovered the true religion of the 
Bible; — Whilst Socinus contended that the Bible condemned them 
both, in as much as they still retained the divinity of Christ among 


CONTROVERSY'. 


191 


t.ie ‘unreformed’ doctrines i Thus by the Protestant rule of faith, 
they were authorised, to treat the Bible, as an accommodating oracle; 
and as each individual by that rule, has the same right to ascend the 
tripod of interpretation; so, necessarily had each one the right to de- 
ceive the people in his own way, by giving out the word of Christ, 
and proclaiming as loudly as he might ‘thus saiththe oracle.’ But the 
contradictions which were proclaimed from the tripod, give ample 
proof that it was the Priest that spoke, and not the oracle. How then 
do Protestant controversialists confute the doctrines of the Catholic 
church, by scripture ? They have two ways. One is to blacken our 
doctrines with misrepresentation; as when you said that indulgences 
are ‘a bundle of licenses to commit sin’ — and then, of course, the 
Scriptures will condemn them. The other, to quote Scripture against 
our real tenets; and whenever they do this it will be found that they 
give an interpretation to the text which it never had, except among 
heretics, until Luther raised the standard of revolt against the Chris- 
tian church, about three hundred years ago. But if Protestantism 
were not a ‘delusion’ would it require either of these expedients to 
sustain it? The religion of Christ would blush to acknowledge sup- 
port from such artifices. And yet, I could crowd the page with ad- 
ditional names of Protestant writers who testitfy that such have been 
the artifices of Protestantism; and your letters, Rev. Sir, furnish pain- 
ful evidence that Protestantism still preserves their peculiar feature 
of its identity. 

The next testimony by which Protestantism could sustain itself 
would be ecclesiastical History. But how could ecclesiastical his- 
tory furnish evidence in favour of a religion which did not exist? 
History has, indeed, transmitted to us the account of all the sects, 
that have sprung up, flourished and decayed, since the foundation of 
the church: — but Protestantism does not profess to derive its origin 
from any of them. It began with Martin Luther and this fact is suf- 
ficient to show that history, previous to the 16 th century, is necessa- 
rily silent, on the subject of Protestantism. Prophecy speaks of the 
future — history, of the past — and, as Protestantism was not, it was 
impossible for history to bear any testimony in its favour. And yet 
you talked of the fathers, who were all Catholics, and the champions 
of the Catholic rule of faith, with as much confidence as if they had 
been staunch Calvinists ! What have Protestants to do with the Fa- 
thers ? The Bible alone, as every one interprets it for himself, is their 
principle. How then, the reader will ask, can Protestant writers 
quote Catholic authorities to support their system. I answer, that 
like Mr. Breckinridge they ‘add’ and ‘omit’ words, change the ‘punc- 
tuation,’ &c.-— You seem, Rev. Sir, to be greatly offended at my hav- 
ing made this charge against you. But whatever impunity you may 
expect from unsuspecting Protestants, it is too much to suppose that 
I should connive at the falsification of authorities which your letters 
abound. You wish me to apologise for my ‘insolence.’ Here then is 
my apology. I will meet you before the General Assembly, or in any 
public hall in the city, on any day you think proper to name, and 
convict your letters of having ‘added’ and ‘omitted’ words, ‘changed 
the punctuation,’ and so falsified the authorities — in presence of any 


19i 


CONTROVERSY. 


number of gentlemen and ladies who may thin!: proper to attend. — 
I hope this alternative will be a sufficient atonement for what you are 
pleased to call my ‘insolence.’ 

In your late interview I compelled you to acknowledge that you 
had garbled the extract from the 4th Council of Lateran by leaving 
out whole sentences; although, in your printed letter at the time, you 
proclaimed in a tone of indignant triumph, that you quoted from Ca- 
ranza, and that it was continuous as well as literal. Now if you 
quote as you say, ‘from our own Caranza,’ you must have known that 
it was not continuous; and with this knowledge, how could you an 
swer ‘unhesitatingly’ that it was ! It looks strange; but I make no 
comment. 

In your last letter, you give an extract from a Bull of Innocent 
VIII. published in 1477. The original of this Bull, you tell us is pre- 
served in the University of Cambridge. But it is unnecessary for me 
to go to Cambridge in order to convict you of mistateinent in reference 
to it. Pope Innocent VIII, was elected in the year 1484 — and it is 
not usual with our Popes, to issue Bulls seven years before their elec- 
tion; such Bulls come from another quarter. But Uev. Sir, I cannot 
pass from one quotation to another of your letters, without being pain- 
ed at the necessity you impose on me, of exposing either your igno- 
rance of the authors you cite, or your dishonesty in quoting them. — 
Even in your last letter, whilst you affect to be greatly incensed at 
my charges on this head, and require me to apologise for my ‘inso- 
lence, 5 you are detected in new falsifications. But unfortunately for 
you the original document is not so remote as ‘the University of Cam- 
bridge.’ 

I shall cite the canon of the 3d Council of Lateran, just as you 
have done, except that 1 shall supply in italics, the passages which you 
have found it convenient to suppress. These passages I shall place in 
the context, that the reader may perceive how much the whole is falsi- 
fied by you — and judge accordingly. 

‘As the blessed Leo says, although ecclesiastical discipline, content 
with sacerdotal judgment, does not exact bloody vengeance; yet, it 
is assisted by the constitution of Catholic princes, in order that men, 
while they fear that corporal punishment may be inflicted on them, 
may often seek a salutary remedy. On this account because in Gas- 
cony, Albi,in the parts of Toulous, and in other regions, the accurs- 
ed perverseness, of the heretics, variously denominated Cathari, or 
Patarenas, or Publicans, or distinguished by sundry names, has so 
prevailed, that they now' no longer exercise their wickedness in pri- 
vate, but publicly manifest their errors, and seduce into their com- 
munion the simple and infirm. We therefore subject to a curse, (bad- 
ly translated of course, but no matter) both themselves and their de- 
fenders and harbourers; and, under a curse we prohibit all persons 
from admitting them into their houses, or receiving them upon their 
lands, or cherishing them, or exercising any trade with them.’ But 
if they die in this sin , let them not receive Christian burial , under 
pretence of any privilege granted by us, or any other pretext what- 
ever s and let no offering be made for them. 


CONTROVERSY. 


193 


vfs to the Brabantians, Navarii, Basculi , Coterelli and Triaver- 
dinii who exercise such cruelty towards the Christians, spare nei- 
ther monasteries, spare neither widows, nor virgins, neither old nor 
young, neither sex nor age, but after the manner of the Fagans de- 
stroy and desolate every thing , we in like manner, decree that such 
persons as shall protect, or retain or encourage them in districts in 
which they commit these excesses, be publically denounced in the 
churches on Sundays and festival days, and that they be considered 
as bound by the same censure and penalty as the aforesaid heretics, 
and be excluded from the communion of the church, until they shall 
have abjured that pestiferous consociation and heresy. Bui let all 
persons who ars implicated with them in any crime (alluding to their 
vassals) know that they are released from the obligation of fealty, 
homage, and subjection to them, so long as they continue in so great 
iniquity.’ ‘.Moreover we enjoin (on these, and) all the faithful, for 
the remission of their sins, that they manfully oppose themselves to 
such ‘calamities’ (no, Mr. Breckinridge, — look in your Dictionary:— 
‘Cladibus’ means more — the crimes alluded to in the passage which 
you ‘omitted,’ falsifying thereby the whole) and that they defend 
(bless me what persecution ! ! !) the Christian people by arms. And 
let their goods be confiscated, and let it be freely permitted to prin- 
ces to reduce men of such a stamp to slavery,’ &c. 

The rest of the quotation the reader may refer to in your own let- 
ter. I wonder whether ‘men of such a stamp,’ would not be reduc- 
ed to the penitentiary, if they committed such crimes in our day and 
in our country ? Let Protestants read this as it is in the original, and 
then excluding the passages marked in italics, and suppressed by their 
champion ! See the means by which their cause is defended ! Would 
a good cause require such support? Will not honourable Protestants 
reject it with indignation ? And yet you Rev. Sir, have politely charg- 
ed me with ‘insolence,’ for ‘daring’ to question the character of your 
quotations. It was to save myself the paintul necessity of these ex- 
posures that I, long since, cautioned you to beware of your authori- 
ties — knowing that it is by such means that the delusion of Protest- 
antism has for the most part, sustained itself until this hour. It is a 
hard case indeed, that your falsifications of Catholic testimonies 
(with which the people are unacquainted in general) are now more 
numerous than your letters, which I pledge myself to prove pub- 
licly, as soon as you please. It seems you cannot give even the title 
of a chapter in a book, without falsifying it. Bellarmine’s chapter 
is headed ‘Posse Heereticosab ecclesia damnatos, temporalibus pcenis, 
et etiam morte mulctari.’ Now every school boy knows that this mere- 
ly states, that ‘Heretics, condemned by the church, may be punished 
with temporal penalties, and even death.’ And yet your version of 
itin your last letter placed in italics, and between inverted commas, 
is, that ‘it was the duty of the church to burn heretics.’ Book 3. c. 21. 
of the Laity — directing us to that very line, and page, which if you 
ever saw it, you must have known would convict you of falsifying !— 
These trangressions have been, Rev. Sir, so frequent, and so flagrant, 
that were I so disposed, I might hold you as unworthy of literary in- 
tercourse, until you shall have cleared them up. When I accepted 


194 


CONTROVERSY. 


your challenge addressed to ‘Priests and Bishops,’ I did not antici- 
pate that 1 should have to suspect your references, at every step o( 
your progress. You have, indeed, accused me of misrepresentation; 
hut you have not pointed out the passage in my letters that contains 
it. It is true that l have shown that all the Reformers, so called, 
were persecutors; but I quoted their conduct and language in sup- 
port of the charge, and if you show me that I have made even a mis- 
take, I will cheerfully correct it. In fact it was impossible for me to 
‘misrepresent’ when I only repeated their own words. 

Now for the subject of persecution. I proved in my last letter 
that the founders of Presbyterianism were men of blood, both in prin- 
ciple and practice. I challenged you to show in the history of the 
world, an instance in which Presbyterians had the political ascenden- 
cy, without using it for the purposes of persecution. And although, 
in reply you ‘admit that in a comparatively small measure Protest- 
ants have done the same;’ and although ‘you condemn it, you renounce 
it, you mourn over it,’ &c. yet it is extremely questionable whether 
Presbyterians are completely emancipated from the tolerant genius 
of their doctrines, and the perverse propensities of their forefathers. 
If there is no single instance in all history in which Presbyterians 
did not persecute, when they had the power, both Catholics and Pro- 
testants — then, I know not on what ground you can expect us to be- 
lieve that they would not do the same again. Even now according to 
your standard of 1821, the magistrates are ‘nursing fathers to the 
church of our common Lord ’ 

Catholics on the contrary can point with pride to many countries, 
in which the Protestants are not one to twenty of the population, and 
yet are secure in the enjoyment of equal rights. The cases to which 
you refer, were such as involved many considerations, besides the 
mere rights of conscience. They involved the rights #>f property, 
power, and public order. It was not so much the preaching of anar- 
chy in the the name of doctrine, that was guarded against. Civil war, 
bloodshed, and desolation followed in the footsteps of those fanatics 
who rose in Catholic countries to disturb the established order of so- 
ciety. This presents a case very different from any thing recorded in 
the crimson annals of Protestant persecution — where the only of- 
fence was the exercise of the rights of conscience. But, after the 
proofs contained in my last letter on the general subject, and consid- 
ering that you are compelled to admit every testimony therein record- 
ed, your returning to the topic of persecution is rather unaccounta- 
ble. You insinuate that it is a part of Catholic doctrine; whilst the 
very documents adduced by yourself, all garbled as they are, prove 
the contrary. The canon of Lateran begins ‘as the blessed Leo saith 
although ecclesiastical discipline, content with sacerdotal judgment, 
does not exact the punishment of blood’ — or of death, &c. ‘Disci- 
pline’ is not doctrine — and ‘sacerdotal judgment,’ condemns only the 
doctrine of heresy, leaving the heretic himself to the laws of the 
state which he disturbes. The Quakers of New England who were 
hanged by the Presbyterians, were guilty of no such offences. The 
Priests of Ireland who were hunted down with Presbyterian blood- 
hounds, as Dr. Taylor relates, were not even charged with any other 


CONTROVERSY. 


195 


crime, except that of being priests. The fugitive of Geneva whom 
Calvin had burned to death, was guilty of no crime, except that of 
following the Protestant rule ot faith by interpreting the Scriptures 
tor himself. Luther wished the blood of* all bishops, cardinals, popes, 
&c. that he might ‘wash his hands in it.’ Knox was for exterminat- 
ing all Catholics. Henry VI II. Elizabeth, and Edward VI. perse- 
cuted to death for the crime of exercising liberty of conscience. The 
Episcopalians of Virginia persecuted the Presbyterians; — the Catho- 
lics of Maryland protected them, in the enjoyment of all their reli- 
gious rights, and admitted them to equal privileges with themselves 
in the civil administration of the colony. The gratitude of the Pres- 
byterians was the gratitude of the serpent that stings the bosom which 
has fostered it. They put down and persecuted these very Catho- 
lics as soon as it was in their power. They did the same in England, 
towards the Episcopalians themselves. John Wesley taught that not 
only Protestants, but even Mahomedans and Pagans are bound to per- 
secute Roman Catholics. And yet these are the men who proclaimed 
that every one had the right to read the Bible and judge for himself! 
These are the saints, the fathers, the apostles of Protestantism! It 
was by these means that they propogated the radical delusion of their 
system, for which it would have been hard, if they could not invent, 
at least a good name; which they did, by calling it the religion of the 
‘Bible alone.’ You did well, then, to say that you ‘condemn’ all this, 
that ‘you renounce it,’ that ‘you mourn over it:’ — but until your tears 
shall have washed it all away, you do wrong to charge any denomina- 
tion with the crime of persecution. The imputation therefore, of hav- 
ing recourse to physical force, in order to ‘determine disputes in the 
church,’ is one in which Protestants are more implicated than Catho- 
lics. With us, it was adopted as an antidote to prevent the rise of 
heresy, and its concomitant civil disorders, in Catholic states. With 
you, it was the torture applied as a remedy, to compel heretics to em* 
brace the opinions of the predominant party, in the state for the time 
being. With you, it was the nominal right of every man to read the 
Scripture, and judge for himself — but woe to that man who dared to 
exercise his right, when Presbyterians had the political ascendancy in 
any country. In Ireland, he was given up to bloodhounds, in Eng- 
land to the scaffold, in Holland to the dungeon, in Geneva to the 
stake and faggot, and in Boston to the gallows. All this was done by 
Presbyterians and their founder — and yet, you, a Presbyterian, talk 
of persecution ! ! But it seems that Presbyterians have become quite 
meek and tolerant, since the rod of political powder has been wrested 
from their hands, and we have Mr. Breckinridge making acts of con- 
trition for the use made of it — ‘he condemns it, he renounces it, he 
mourns over it.’ It is wisdom, says the proverb, to make a virtue of 
necessity. 

Now let us try to return to the rule of faith, which, if I may judge 
by your efforts to evade it, you seem to dread as cordially as you do 
persecution itself. You would wish me even to deny the divinity of 
Christ, in order that you might have an opportunity of proving it from 
the Scripture alone. But I cannot gratify you, by ascending to this 
strange proposal. Y~ou may break a lance with any of your Unitarian 


196 


CONTROVERSY. 


orUniversalist brethren, on this awful question; and the more so, 
as they and you have the same rule of faith; viz. your right of private 
judgment as to the meaning of the Bible. But beware of the conse- 
quences — fori can assure you that the Unitarian will bear you down 
by the logical consequences of your own rule of faith — and this alone 
ought to make Protestants see the ‘radical delusion’ of their system. 

The question between us, is touching that ‘infallible rule of faith 
which Christ established, to guide us in matters of religion, and to 
determine disputes in his church.’ Is it the Bible alone, interpreted 
by each individual for himself? If it is not, then it follows that the 
Protestant principle is fallacious. And that it is not, I think has 
been abundantly established in the progress of these letters. 1st. Be- 
cause the Bible was not completely written, until after many years from 
the ascension of Christ into heaven — and consequently was not estab- 
lished by him, as the only rule of faith. 2d. Several books of the 
Bible were not universally received, as authentic and inspired, for 
some centuries after, and therefore the Bible was not, and could not 
be, theonly rule of faith by which the first Christians were guided. 
3d. The sects, who, in those ages adopted the Bible alone for their 
rule of faith, were heretics, acknowledged and condemned as such 
by Protestants themselves. 4th. Because the testimony by which we 
know the Bible to be what it is, must be something different from the 
book itself. Hence, the first act of a Protestant’s faith, (which in- 
cludes every thing else,) is founded on that testimony; and conse- 
quently is not founded on the Bible alone. 5th. Because even after 
we are convinced bv this testimony, the Bible, all inspired as it is, 
cannot be a rule of faith, except in as much as our minds are success- 
ful inenvolving its true sense. 6th. And as the Protestant is obliged 
to adopt the opiniou which grows up in his mind, as to the sense* 
when he reads the Bible or hears it read, — it consequently follows 
that this opinion in point of fact, is the Protestant rule of faith — and 
not the Bible alone, 7th. Because the Bible contains mysteries for 
the exercise of faith, to be believed as facts divinely revealed — but 
when reduced to the judgment of private opinion, they cease to be 
objects of faith, and become matters of speculation. 

These are the conclusions which reason must draw facts and cir- 
cumstances of the case. To these rational evidences may be added, 
that neither Christ nor his Apostles say, in any part of the sacred 
writings, that the Bible alone is the rule of faith. On the contrary, 
they command us to be guided by the church — ‘if any one will not 
hear the church let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.’ The 
fathers all agree in this testimony, as l have shown in a variety of 
quotations from their writings. And it is an historical fact, beyond 
the reach of refutation, that no Christians ever professed to be guided 
by the Scripture alone, as their only rule of faith, except the Protes- 
tants who began in the 1 6th century, and the heretics of antiquity. 

What has been the character of your answers to all these argu- 
ments of reason, revelation, and history? Why, that the written 
word of Gou was completed before the death of the last Apostle— as 
if St. John banished to the Isle of Patmos, or dwelling in Ephesus, 
could be a rule of faith for all the provinces of the empire ! And 


CONTROVERSY. 


1*7 


then, why did not the ‘infallible’ church determine the canon nf 
Scripture sooner than the year 397? As if the Scripture alone had 
been the rule of faith even in the church! And then, garbled or irre- 
velent extracts from the fathers — -and then the ‘vicious circle’ which I 
have solved at least twice, although once should have been enough. 
And then the Pope calling himself God — which he never did. And 
then tTie blessing of asses in Rome. And then the Inquisition ; 
the massacre of St. Bartholomew; Taylor’s dissuasive from Popery; 
Rome in the 19th century, &c. &c. Do you imagine, Rev’d Sir, that 
the sincere Protestant will be satisfied with these criminations, which, 
whether true or false, have nothing to do with the main question? Do 
you suppose, that even admitting the whole premises; he will conclude 
that therefore, the Bible alone, or to speak more correctly, the opin- 
ion which he may happen to form as to the meaning of the Bible, is 
that ‘infallible rule of faith established by Christ to guide us in matters 
of religion, and to determine disputes in his church?’ If you do you 
pay but a poor compliment to his understanding. Do you suppose 
that a principle which gave rise to all the disputes that exist among 
Protestants is that ‘infallible principle’ appointed by Christ for the 
purpose of ‘determining disputes?’ Will he be convinced that the 
principle by which Calvin and Luther rejected several books of the 
New Testament — as well as transubstantiation — by which Socinus, 
rejected the Trinity, by which the Protestants of France, Germany, 
and Geneva, are Christian infidels, denying the divinity of the Sa- 
viour who redeemed them — by which you are a Presbyterian, another 
a U'niversalist, a third a Quaker, a fourth a Swedenborgian, a fifth an 
Episcopalian, a sixth a Lutheran, &c., will he be convinced, I say, by 
all you have charged upon Catholics, that such a principle, is the in- 
fallible rule of faith appointed by the Son of God? But no matter, the 
delusion goes on. The Bible is made the repository of all the con- 
tradictory doctrines of Protestantism — It is reported to be as plain as 
the Holy Spirit could make it — and the ministers received large sa- 
laries and comfortable livings for making it plainer still. 

You seem to be frightened at the condition of Protestant Germany 
— and call upon me to show that the ‘free and self-interpreting use of 
the Bible has done all this evil.’ It is not the use of the Bible, but 
the use of the Protestant rule of faith, that has done all this evil. It 
is the abuse of the Bible. 

I have repeatedly protested against the disingenuousness of 
your statements in which I am constantly represented as arguing 
against the Bible — or the ‘use of the Bible.’ The use of the Bible is 
in the Catholic church as I contend, and the abuse of it in the Protes- 
tant denominations. But I am surprised that you should require proof 
of a matter that is so plain and obvious. The Germans were told by 
Luther to read the Scriptures and judge for themselves. They have 
done so, and ceased to be Christians! Was it simply by reading the 
Scriptures that this occurred? No certainly. But because reading 
the Scriptures according to the Protestant rule of faith, they were 
obliged to make their private reason the standard and measure of 
their belief in the doctrines contained in the Bible. As you require 
proof however I will give it you. Robinson in his ‘Proofs of a Con- 
spiracy’ tells us, speaking of the Lutherans and Calvinists of Germa- 
24 


CONTROVERSY. 


198 


ny, — ‘The Scriptures, the foundation of our faith, were examined by 
clergymen oFvery different capacities, dispositions, and views, till 
by explaining, correcting, allegorising, and otherwise twisting the 
Bible, men’s minds had hardly any thing to rest on as a doctrine of 
revealed religion. This encouraged others to go farther, and to say 
that revelation was a solecism, as plainly perceived by the irrecpnci- 
lable differences among those enlighteners of the public, and that 
man had nothing to trust to but the dictates of natural religion.’ (p. 
Gf.) Th ese ‘enlightners’ are following the Protestant rule of faith 
every where; and every where, the same causes necessarily existing, 
will be succeeded by the same effects as in Germany. Look at the 
congregations that have gone over to Unitarianism in New England 
at the beck of the ‘enlighteners.’ And all this by the use — not of 
the Bible — but of your rule of faith. 

In the Catholic church notwithstanding all that Protestants say to 
the contrary, we read the Scripture as the inspired word of God — 
we exercise our judgment, — and arrive by a rational process of in- 
vestigation, at the proofs of our doctrine. But we do not like the 
Protestant readers, take upon us to become ‘enlighteners of the pub- 
lic, by explaining, correcting, allegorising, and otherwise twisting the 
Bible,’ according to the measure of individual capacity and private 
opinion. We hold that the Bible means now, what it meant 1500 
years ago — and on points of doctrine, we interpret it according to 
the perpetual, unbroken, Catholic public teaching of the church. The 
consequence is that we do not change our creed, to suit the genius of 
any country, or to keep pace with the improvements of any age. — 
It is for those who acknowledge their religion to be of human origin, 
to improve their doctrines — and deny their tenets, as often as they 
shall become ‘offensive’ but we hold our doctrines to be divine, and 
consequently beyond the reach of man’s improvement. 

Hence our doctrines are identically the same all over the world — 
and what they were when first preached to the world — that they are 
now and that they will be until the consummation of time. The ques- 
tion, therefore is not to be decided according to the arrangement of 
terms laid down in a recent charge ‘The rule of faith,’ — which, with- 
out professing to be, is generally regarded as a prop to the weakness 
of your arguments; in opposition to my reasoning, on the same sub- 
ject. This being the case, I shall take the liberty of reviewing it, 
apart from this controversy in a separate publication, in the course of 
a few days. 

In the mean time before I close, I must allude to a train of little 
questions which are found in the conclusion of your last letter. But 
I have not space to answer them — for with all the indulgence of the 
Editors, I should trespass were I to attempt to furnish you with in- 
struction as well as argument. The ‘question’ you asked in refer- 
ence to Bishop Kendrick’s warning ‘against reading the controvery,’ 
ought to have convinced you that even interogatories are sometimes 
dangerous. But as the restrictions of Catholic states, on the liberty 
of the press, and prohibited books seems to be a great hobby in all 
your letters, — it may be proper for me to say, that Catholic states, 
like Protestant states, manage their national affairs pretty much as 


CONTttOYllt8r. 


Iff 

they please. When Presbyterians, however, sat at the helm of civil 
government, they did not do much better. In those days it was a sin 
to print or even read the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. By 
an ordinance of the Presbyterian [parliament dated August 23d, 
1645, ‘Any person using the book of Common Prayer, forfeited, for 
the first offence five pounds, forthe second ten, and for the third suf- 
fered imprisonment. All common prayer books in churches or chap- 
els were ordered to be brought to the Committee within a month, un- 
der the forfeit of forty shillings for each book.’ (Rushworth p. 207.) 
By another ordinance passed August 29, 1654, for the ejection of 
scandalous, ignorant and inefficient ministers and schoolmasters, it is 
enacted ‘that such ministers and schoolmasters shall be accounted 
scandalous, as have publicly and frequently read the common prayer 
book,’ the reading of which was judged by this ordinance as greatan 
offence as drunkenness, fornication, adultery, perjury, or blasphemy. 

Yours, very respectfully, 

Jno. Hughes. 

P.S. In your letter dated April 1833, you say in reference to the 
warning against reading this controversy — ‘I did not proceed in this 
matter without a responsible name; and even then, knowing the de- 
fects of tradition, I asked it as a question, whether my informant was 
mistaken, and left it open for correction. 1 have now the name be* 
fore me, and the permission to make it public, if required by the Bi- 
shop. If he demand it, therefore, it shall be given.’ Now, Rev. Sir, 
I call on you to redeem your promise, thus publicly made. The Bi- 
shop has ‘demanded it,’ and it has not been ‘given;’ — John Burtt, 
whose name is appended to nearly half a column of special pleading 
on the subject, positively asserts, that he is not your ‘informant,’ and 
consequently I call upon you to redeem your public pledge— provid- 
ed always, it is not a lady, ‘whom for convenience sake, you might 

call M .” PoorM ! She could not distinguish between St. 

Mary’s and St. John’s, the one in 4th street, the other in 13th ! She 
could not distinguish between the dress of a Bishop and that of a 
Priest, although Mr. Burtt tells us she ‘had been educated among Ro- 
man Catholics.’ She could not distinguish between some other day, 
and the 17th of February, the day on which your informant ‘insist- 
ed’ that the ‘warning was given’ — and on which it so happens that 
Mr. Hughes did occupy the desk of St. John’s, and not the ‘Connec- 
ticut Valley Priest;’ whom M supposed to be a bishop! It seem9 

the Catholics in educating M did not furnish her with the attri- 

butes of a good memory. 

And poor Mr. Burtt ! He heard it from ‘two friends,’ who had been 
told by ‘one, who was present, whose ears heard it’ (never !) and he 
told it to — a ‘mutual friend,’ and he supposes, for ‘he never inquired,’ 
that it was ‘communicated to Mr. B.’ Mr. Burtt, therefore, Rev. Sir, 
is not your ‘informant’ — and [consequently you pledge to give the 
name, if the Bishop demand it — as he has — is still unredeemed.— 
Let this point of (Protestant) ‘oral t-radition,’ as Mr. Burtt terms it, 


*00 


CONTROVERSY. 


be cleared up. Is this Mr. Burtt the same who was formerly editor 
of the Presbyterian? Heu ! Quantum mutatus abillo! Were it 
not for his signature I never should suspect him of being the author 
of such a letter. But it is the name of your ‘informant,’ or the re- 
traction of the charge, that is required. 


| 


CONTROVERSY No. XVIII. 


RULE OF FAITH. 


Philadelphia, May 50, 1833. 


To the Rev. John Hughes. 

Rev. Sir ,' — It was remarked by the great Robert Hall (whose works 
I hope you will get a license from the Committee of Rome to read) 
‘That one of the severest trials of human virtue is the trial of con- 
troversy.’ At the commencement of our correspondence, refinement, 
Christian propriety, and official dignity, were pledged as the graces 
which should guide your pen and adorn your pages; and even in a recent 
communication, you have told me that you could not render ‘railing 
fot railing.’ In your last letter, if never before, you throw aside all 
reserve, and give specimens, to the life, of a spirit and temper which 
fairly identify you with the renowned Ecclesiastical bullies of New 
York, who are now expending their coarse and vulgar railleries, against 
the Bible, and the friends of Christ; who are edifying us much with- 
out intending it; and have the effect which the great critic of anti- 
quity assigns to the stage, that of purifying the heart by pity and ter- 
ror.’ In this service I must yield the palm to the models and repre- 
sentatives of the ‘Infallible church;’ and concede to you, without re- 
serve, every advantage which such superiority can confer. The ap- 
plication ot these remarks will be promptly’ made even by the most 
cursory reader of your last letter. 

Your ‘mock heroic’ proposals to ‘meet me before the General As- 
sembly’ is unfortunately too late, since that body adjourned on the 
27th inst. XVhat effect the expectation of meeting the distinguish- 
ed Secretary, who lately announced to us ‘the plenary indulgence of 
the Pope,’ might have had in delaying their adjournment, I cannot say. 
Your courage was not equal to a public meeting six months ago, or the 
whole ground of controversy might long since have been traversed; 
and if the meaning of the latter member of the sentence be that you 
will so meet me now, I am still prepared to pursue the discussion in 
that way. If not, then I add your pledge ‘to convict my letters of 
having added, and omitted words, changed punctuation, falsified au- 
thorities, &c.’ to the list of things which we have referred, and defy 
you to verify your slander, or to vindicate yourself by one single 
proof, for the ‘insolence’ which has uttered them. 

This may be as proper as any other place to expose by way of con- 
tract, some specimens of your many misrepresentations. 

1st. That which relates to our Confession, being on file, may repose 
until we can give the decision of the referees whom you have pro- 
posed. 

2d. You say in your last letter, ‘the Catholics of Maryland pro- 
tected them (Presbyterians) in the enjoyment of all their religious 
rights; and admitted them to equal privileges with themselves in the 
civil administration of the colony. The gratitude of the Presbyte- 



CONTROVERSY, 


202 

rians was the gratitude of the serpent that stings the bosom which has 
fostered it. They put down and persecuted these very Catholics, as 
soon as it was in their power.’ Now will you do us the favour to 
show when and where ‘the Presbyterians put down and persecuted 
these very Catholics as soon as it was in their power ?’ I pronounce 
it an utter fabrication. There is not even the semblance of fact or 
truth in the statement. And let me ask, was it in the power of the 
Catholics of Maryland, according to the terms of the original char- 
ter, to exterminate or persecute Protestants, if they had desired it? 
The fact of their having tolerated Protestants stands forth indeed 
like a solitary green spot in that great wilderness over which the Pa- 
pacy has spread its desolations, and I would not willingly pluck the 
only jewel from the bloody brow of your church. But it has yet to 
be shown that they had the power to persecute. What if Mr. Hughes 
should boast that he allows Mr. Breckinridge freely to publish his 
views, and though a ‘heretic,’ to ‘live and move, and have his being’ 
in this country ? Shall we thank him for that ? 

Poor Bellarmine, whom you have dismissed with your magic wand 
to the Limbo of ‘opinions,’ because he was too honest for our latitude, 
gives us a very candid account of this matter. He says (Book 3. 
chap. 23 of Laics.) ‘But when in reference to Heretics, thieves and 
other wicked men, there arises this question in particular, ‘shall they 
be exterminated ?’ it is to be considered according to the meaning of 
our Lord, whether that can be done without injury to the good; and if 
that be possible, they are without doubt to be extirpated; (sunt procul 
dubio extirpandi) but if that be not possible, either because they are 
not sufficiently known, and then there would be danger of punishing 
the innocent instead of the guilty; or because they are stronger than 
ourselves, and their be danger lest if we make a war upon them, 
more of our people than of theirs should be slain, then we must keep 
quiet (tunc quiescendum est.) 

3d. You say ‘the Quakers of New England were hanged by the 
Presbyterians.’ This also, is, without qualification, a mistatement. 
There was a time when Congregationalists in some parts of New 
England did persecute that now amiable people. But I would ask, 
upon what authority you have ventured to utter so unfounded a charge 
against us; and since you will not permit me to excuse your misre- 
presentations on the ground of ignorance, to what account shall the 
public set down this mistatement? 

4th In two successive letters you have attacked the character of 
the celebrated John Wesley. In the first you say (Letter No. 15) 
‘Even the meek John Wesley as late as the year 1780, proclaimed that 
they (Catholics) ought not to be tolerated by any government, Pro- 
testant, Mahometan, or Pagan.’ You repeat this qharge in your 
last letter. While I leave to others, better acquainted with his history 
and opinions than myself, such a defence as may bethought necessary, 
I feel it to be my duty here briefly to expose a flagrant example of that 
unworthy garbling with which, in another case, you have ventured to 
charge me. In the very letter, and partly in the very paragraph from 
which you take the above sentence, there is a distinct disclaimer of 
the spirit of persecution. Let us quote it: ‘With persecution I have 


CONTROVERSY. 


SOS 


nothing to do; I persecute no man for his religious principles. Let 
there be as boundless a freedom in religion as any man, can conceive. 
But this does not touch the point; I will set religion true or false out 
of the question. Yet 1 insist upon it that no government not Roman 
Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion. I 
prove this by plain argument, let him answer it that can: that no Ro- 
man Catholic does, or can give security for his allegiance or peacea- 
ble behaviour I prove thus: It is a Roman Catholic maxim established 
not by private men, but by a public council, that ‘no faith is to be kept 
with heretics.’ This has been openly avowed by the Council of Con- 
stance; but it never was openly disclaimed. Whether private per- 
sons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the church of Rome. 
But as long as it is so, nothing can be more plain than that the mem- 
bers of that church, can give no reasonable security to any govern- 
ment, for their allegiance or peaceable behaviour. (Here follow the 
words quoted by Mr. Hughes:) Therefore they ought not to be tole- 
rated by any government, Protestant, Mahometan, or Pagan. (The 
author proceeds.) You may say, ‘nay but they will take an oath of 
allegiance.’ True, five hundred oaths; but the maxim, ‘no faith is to 
be kept with heretics’ sweeps them all away as a spider’s web. So 
that still, no governors, that are not Roman Catholics, can have any 
security of their allegiance. The power of granting pardons for all 
sins, past, present, and to come is, and has been for many centuries 
one branch of his (the Pope’s) spiritual power. But those who ac- 
knowledge him to nave this spiritual power can give no security for 
their allegiance, since they believe the Pope can pardon rebellions, 
high treasons, and all other sins whatever. The power of dispensing 
with any promise, oath, or vow is another branch of the spiritual 
power of the Pope. All who acknowledge his spiritual power must 
acknowledge this. But whoever acknowledges the dispensing power 
of the Pope, can give no security for his allegiance to any govern- 
ment. Nay, not only the Pope, but even a Priest has the power to 
pardon sins. This is an essential doctrine of the church of Rome, 
but they that acknowledge this cannot possibly give any security for 
their allegiance to any government. Oaths are no security at all, for 
the Priest can pardon both perjury and high treason. Setting; then, 
religion aside, it is plain that upon principles of reason, no govern- 
ment ought to tolerate men who cannot give any security to that go- 
vernment for their allegiance and peaceable behaviour-— Would I 
wish, then the Roman Catholics to be persecuted ? I never said or 
hinted any such thing. I abhor the thought; it is foreign from all I 
have preached and wrote these fifty years. But I would wish the 
Romanists in England, (I had no others in view) to be treated with 
the same lenity that they have been these sixty years; to be allowed 
both civil and religious liberty; but not permitted to undermine ours.’ 
(See Wesley’s works vol. 5. p. 817, 818, 826.) 

From these extracts it is palpable to every honest mind that gross 
injustice has been done to Mr. Wesley. While he disclaims perse- 
cution on the one hand, he proves on the other, that no Roman Catho- 
lic, if consistent, can give reasonable security to any governor or go- 
vernment, not Roman Catholic, of his allegiance and peaceable beha- 


204 


CONTROVERSY. 


viour! ^nd now if instead of scandalizing his memory, you will 
answer his argument, you will do a good service to ‘your lord the 
Pope.’ 

5th. You say ‘In our late interview I compelled you to acknow- 
ledge that you had garbled the extract from the 4th Conncil of La- 
teran, by leaving out whole sentences.’ I am constrained to say that 
it is absolutely and wholly a gratuitous misrepresentation — and lap- 
peal in proof to the gentlemen who were present. I told you, as is the 
fact, that I gave an abstract or continued sense of the whole passage; 
that it was simply for want of room 1 gave no more; that what was 
omitted made nothing for you, nor against me. And now I challenge 
you to take up that passage, and show that I have left out one line or 
one word which will at all affect the sense of the decree. And 1 far- 
ther challenge you to defend that passage — which by the authority of 
a general Council dooms heretics to destruction — rewards those whp 
aid in their extermination— excommunicates those who received, de- 
fended, or favoured them — orders the princes and rulers of the na- 
tions to purge their land of heretical filth — absolve their subjects (here 
see the force of Wesley’s argument) from their allegiance if the prin- 
ces refuse; and gives the lands of the heretics to the pious papists who 
slaughtered or expelled them ! And yet, gentle reader, this is the 
Priest, who says this was only a ‘feudal’ council: — and this the man 
who from several letters and many pages of Wesley’s writings, took 
out of its connexion one sentence omitting the disclaimers and ex- 
planations which looked him directly in the face! 

6th. You charge me as follows: ‘It seems you cannot give even the 
title of a chapter in a book, without falsifying it. Bellarmine’s chap- 
ter is headed — Posse hrereticos ab ecclesia damnatos, temporalibus 
jnenis, et etiam morfe mulctari. Now every school boy knows that 
this merely states, that heretics condemned by the church, may be 
punished with temporal penalties, and even death. And yet your ver- 
sion of it in your last letter placing it in italics, and between inverted 
comas, is, that ‘it was the duty of the church to burn heretics.” And 
is it possible that you can so presume upon the ignorance of your rea- 
ders when the very first sentence in the chapter (already cited at large 
by me in letter No 1 1) thus begins: ‘Nos igitur bre viter ostend emus 
hrereticos incorrigibiles ac prajsertim relapses, posse ac debere ab ec- 
clesia rejici et a secularibus potestatibus, temporalibus pcenis atque 
ipsa etiam morte mulctari.’ ‘We will briefly show that the church has 
the power, and it is her duty to cast oft* incorrigible heretics, especi- 
ally those who have relapsed, and that the secular power ought to 
inflict on such temporal punishments, and even death itself.’ Here 
is both ‘posse’ and ‘debere:’ will you say that ‘debere’ means only 
‘maybe?’ Does it not convey the full force of the word duty or 
‘ought to be ?’ Really such disingenuous cavils would be beneath the 
simple dignity of a manly ‘school boy !’ 

7 . In your letter No. 15 you had evaded the force of many extracts 
from your standard writers by the sweeping specific that they express- 
ed only their ‘opinions,’ and you called for Ecclesiastical authority. — 

I proceeded accordingly to produce several specimens. For exam- 
ple, I adduced Bellarmine’s reference to the Council of Constance: 


CONTROVERSY. 


205 


(Mark it,) not his opinion, but a fact, viz: he says that the Council of 
Constance condemned the sentiments of John Hu ss and Jerome of 
Prague, and handed them over to the civil power; and they were 
burned.’ As you say not one word in reply, are we to hold you as 
acknowledging this fact? If not, what is your reply? Again, the 
same author says ‘that the laws of the church decree that incorrigi- 
ble heretics should thus be dealt with, and that an almost infinite 
number of heretics were burned by the church, as the Donatists, the 
Manicheans, and Albigenses.’ Do you deny it? And if you did, 
shall we believe him or you ? 1 spread out to your view also the fa- 

mous Bull of Innocent VIII. against the poor peeled and butchered 
Waldenses. And how do you meet it? Do you deny it ? No, you 
dare not ! Do you attempt to explain it ? No, you cannot ! What 
then is your answer? ‘Pope Innocent VIII. was elected in the year 
1484 — and it is not usual with our Popes to issue bulls seven years 
before their election; such bulls come from another quarter.’ That 
is, there is a mistake of ten years in stating the date of the bull ! — . 
But will you deny that there was such a bull ? That it was issued in 
1487 instead of 1477: that it enjoined in the name of the Pope, and 
the name of the church, on all the Arch-Bishops and Bishops — and 
all the faithful in virtue, of holy obedience — to exterminate heretics 
by arms — and that it gave to the crusaders a plenary indulgence, and 
the remission of all their sins once in their lives and at death ? Will 
you deny this ? Can you explain it? Is it not according to your call, 
just such : \‘a document in proof of my charge’ as you have defied 
me to ‘show’ you ? — If you have any doubts on this subject, I prefer 
you to Baronii Annales, vol. XIX. page 386. section 25th. 

To these authorities I subjoined an extract from the decree of the 
3d Lateran Council, which in the most ample and awful form con- 
firms the proofs that heretics without number have been exterminated 
by the authority of the General Councils. You attempt no reply to 
stubborn facts adduced, for you well know that none could be given; 
but as usual you descend to the Jesuit’s last resort, personal abuse.— 
You charge me with suppressing a part of this decree which materi- 
ally aftects the sense of the whole. This I am constrained, in self- 
defence, to say is wholly false. It would fill a folio volume to publish 
at large, the multifarious and abominable documents from which the 
Protestant is call to draw the evidences of your church’s corruption 
and guilt. Covered up as they are in an unknown tongue, and care- 
fully withheld, in musty tomes and hidden recesses from the public 
eye, they must be dragged,] ike ^ malefactors, to the light; and they come 
forth muttering anathemas, and. giving out strange sounds of wrath. 
When Jhidduce them in evidence, it is always in reference to some 
leadingTopic; and it is my constant study in every case to give the 
true sense, and connected meaning of the passage in hand. Of this 
evlry reader must be sensible, who has impartially and intelligently 
examined my letters. My object in this case, was to prove that Ge- 
neral Councils decreed the destruction of heretics; and the extracts 
which I ' furnished, proved this without changing the meaning, or 
weakening the force of a single word of the passage. Faber quotes 
just as I have done; Baronius your great annalist himself does not 
■ 25 


206 


CONTROVERSY. 


give the decrees in continuity; Caranza with filial care omits the 
whole; and even Mr. Hughes leaves out several sentences toward the 
close, which go to strengthen my statement. For example this: it is 
enjoined that if any should presume to molest the crusaders they 
should be excommunicated; and if Bishops or Priests refuse to oppose 
themselves decidedly to the heretics they should be deprived of their 
offices. 

But the next place I ask what do the omitted passages prove ? The 
first is this, ‘But if they die in this sin let them not receive Christian 
burial, and let no offering be made for them under pretence of any 
privilege granted by us, or any other pretext whatever . 5 How, I ask, 
does this passage help your cause ? Is it not a still farther illustration 
of the fact lam proving? Hoes it not show that the Holy Council 
would not let the poor heretics rest even in the grave, where the 
most relentless laws of human warfare cease to persecute P Does it 
not further show that the Holy Council superadded the pains of Hell, 
to murder, and the refusal of ‘Christian burial ?’ ‘Let no offering be 
made for them . 5 That is, let the pains of Hell press them; no obla- 
tion ! 

The other passage with whose exclusion yon find fault, is as follows: 
•As to the Brabantiars, Navarrii, Raseuli, Coterelli, and Iriaverdimii, 
who exercise such cruelty towards the Christians, that they pay no 
respect to churches or monasteries, spare neither widows, nor virgins, 
neither old nor young, neither sex norage, but after the manner of the 
Pagans destroy and desolate everything, we, in like manner, decree 
that such persons as shall protect, or retain, or encourage them, in 
districts in which they commit these excesses, be publically denounc- 
ed in the churches on Sundays and festival days, and that they be 
considered as bound by the same censure and penalty as the afore* 
said heretics, and be excluded from the communion of the church, 
until they shall Jiave abjured that pestiferious consociation and here- 
sy. But let all persons who are implicated with them in any crime, 
(alluding to their vassals) know that they are released from the obli* 
gation of fealty, homage, and subjection to them, so long as they con- 
tinue in so great iniquity . 5 Now this passage introduces another peo- 
ple besides those mentioned above, and charges them with other crimes; 
and yet all are comprehended in the same sweeping dispensation of 
death ? Does this make for your cause ? 

The grave Council were not very specially scrupulous about veri- 
ty, though ‘infallible . 5 But suppose it all true, to what does it amount ? 
Why to this, these heretics were a very wicked murderous people; 
therefore the Council had a right to exterminate them ? That this is 
what you mean is evident because you immediately add «I wonder 
whether men of such a stamp would not be reduced to the penitenti- 
ary, if they committed such crimes in our day and in our country ? 5 
But who shall reduce them to the penitentiary ? Mr. Hughes owns 
that the Council decreed their destruction [and pleads that they de- 
served to die ! Then Mr. Hughes, while trying to ‘correct me , 5 ac- 
knowledges that where men deserves ‘to be reduced to the penitenti- 
ary , 5 the church may do it ! From his own showing therefore, and by 
the ‘omitted 5 passages it is avowed that the church of Rome has the 


CONTROVERSY. 


207 

right in certain cases to destroy heretics ! Again, Mr. Hughes shows 
by the ‘omitted’ passage that in certain cases vassals may be released, 
by the church from their obligation of fealty, homage, and subjection, 
to their rulers. (See again Wesley’s argument in this connection.)—* 
Besides the passages not disputed, this said Council, (not the civil 
power but the church of Rome in Council) decreed these heretics to 
‘slavery.’ Tell me then Mr. Hughes, ‘are life, liberty, and the pur- 
suit of happiness unalienable rights ? So says our memorable Decla- 
ration of Independence. Again: this decree inhibits all who will not 
take up arms against said Heretics from the body and blood of Christ. 
Now what has the Church of Christ to do with making war and caus- 
ing men to take up arms ? Will you tell me ? Again: this decree of 
the church of Rome ‘promises remission of sins’ for taking up arms. 
Strange wages for the soldier, even the price of blood ! Will you 
then give up the whole matter, or else explain these decrees, and bulls ? 
How long shall an astonishing community wait, and. for argument re- 
ceive scandal; for reasoning, passion; for facts, charges of falsehood? 
Is it any answer to arguments from the bull of Innocent 8th, to say, 
it was issued in 1487 and not in 1477? Is it any explanation of the 
decree ordering the murder of millions of heretics, to say they de- 
served to be destroyed, and that Mr. Breckinridge omitted the pas- 
sage which proved that they deserved it ? Tell me then has the church 
the right to command or cause any man however wicked to be put to 
death ? This is the question. I have proved from bulls and decrees 
that she has commanded and caused millions to be put to death (and 
most of them innocent.) Now why did she do it? Can you defend 
it? Can you explain it? Can you shun it ? Can you meet it? Yet 
this is your infallible rule of faith; and this your way to save the 
world ! 

The result of all our inquiries is this, that the church of Rome is 
upon a principle, avowedly in her standards, a persecuting church. — 
If Mr. Hughes denies it, he contradicts public documents; if he dis- 
claims and denounces it, he gives up the infallibility of his church. — 
Protestants have persecuted also; but with this difference: 1. It has 
been in the ratio of a thousand to one. 2. They did it in spite of 
their system, not according to it, and as a part of it; and they neither 
deny it or defend it. Having disposed of these indefensible Bulls, 
Decrees, &c. let us see for a moment what you have done, or rather 
omitted in your last letter on the rule of faith, which of late days you 
scarcely touch. 1. What have you said to explain your dilemma, 
which makes you justify Christ’s crucifixion, or give up infallibility ? 
Not a word. 2. What have you said in answer to my threefold expo- 
sure of the doctrine of infallibility, in my last letter? Not a word. 
You seem afraid to touch even the rim of one of your circulating syl- 
logisms. 3. What have you to say ©f ‘the Apocryphal Books? Not 
a word. 4. What have you said of ‘Unwritten Traditions? Not a 
word, except to allude to the powferful essay of BishopjOnderdonk. On 
this topic you reserve, though often called on by me, has left for his 
able pen an ample field. Your ‘answer’ to his ‘charge on the rule of 
faith,’ (like those gigantic arguments pledged in your letter No. 2 
against me) is no doubt destined to live and die, in the land of pro- 


208 


CONTROVERSY. 


mise. 5. ‘The unanimous consent of the Fathers.’ Where is it ? — 
It is a part of the rule of faith ! But where is it? In vain have I 
proved it an impossibility, an absurdity, &c. Not a word from you 
on this subject, except that when I quote the ‘Fathers’ against you, 
you say I have left the Scriptures as a rule of faith, and appeal to the 
Fathers ! 6. 1 offered to discuss with you, the evidence of the Divi- 

nity of our Lord, from the word of God, Though you had said this 
doctrine could not be proved from the Bible alone; yet you entirely 
decline to meet me on this subject. 7 . 1 put four questions to you 
drawn from the ‘documents’ of your church! You call them ‘little 
questions:’ yet small as they are you do not attempt an answer. Why 
silent? Is it so then, that your people are prohibited from hearing 
Protestants preach? Why then such outcry about the warning 
against the reading of this controversy ? Is it so, that your people 
are prohibited the perusal of Grotius, Locke, Milton, Saurin, Young, 
&c. ! Where then are the rights of conscience ? Is not this despo- 
tism? Does it not show r Rome an enemy to acknowledge ? . Is not a 
license necessary to read them, and to read all ‘controversies’ with 
heretics ? And is this the reason that you help out in the pulpit the 
imbecilities of your appeals from the press, and give the substance of 
Protestant’s arguments on the Sabbath to those who may not without 
license dare to read them in the week ? And is it true that the Bible 
is chained to the altar, and none can without permission, read it? And 
does your rule of faith teach that God’s word will injure and mislead 
his creatures ? 

8. Long, long ago, I brought to view the fact that the Pope had or- 
dered Catholic books to be altered, and amended; and that even the 
Fathers had been by authority ‘expurgated’ to make them speak the 
language of the church. Have you denied it? Have you explained it ? 

9. 1 proved from the Pope’s Encyclical letter, lately issued, 
that he had pronounced the liberty ot the press ‘that fatal license of 
which we cannot entertain too much horror:’ and that he called ‘liber- 
ty of conscience, an absurd and dangerous maxim, or rather the rav- 
ing of delirum.’ You say in your last letter, as to restrictions on the 
press, and on books, ‘Catholic States, like- Protestant States, manage 
their own affairs pretty much as they please.’ But the Pope’s letter, 
as the name imports, is not for Italy or Spain, but for the whole church 
every where, — for the secretary who announced the Pope’s jubilee; 
and from the head of the church ! Does the secretary adopt the 
Pope’s principles ? or are these only ‘opinions’ of the Pope ? Do you 
think with a western Prelate of the church of Rome, that ‘as long as 
the Republican Government (in this country) shall subsist,’ the la- 
bours ot the missionaries among the western tribes of Indians are al- 
most fruitless? Or do you think with Bishop England, who said ‘The 
Americans are loud in their reprobation of your servile aristocracy 
(in Ireland) who would degrade religion by placing its concerns un- 
der the control of a king’s minister; and could your aristocrats and 
place-hunters view the state of Catholicity here, they would de- 
grade religion by placing its concerns under the controul of a mob; 
and I am perfectly convinced both are right. In both cases the prin- 
ciple is exactly the same — the mode of carrying it into operation is 


CONTROVERSY. 


209 


different.’ 10. The 3d edition, (in rather an emaciated condition) of 
your ten heads, though twice replied to, appears in your last letter. 
All I have to say now is this, — that, throughout your attempts at dis- 
cussion, you have called ‘private interpretation’ our rule of faith*— 
The Bible is our infallible rule of faith. The Bible is the rule; in- 
terpretation is the use of the rule. If men pervert it, that is not the 
rule of faith. If men abuse the light of the sun to evil deeds, still it 
is the sun. If one takes a true rule and gives a false measure, is it 
the fault of the rule? While the Bible is our rule, I have shown that 
your rule is (1.) the Bible, (2.) the Apocrypha, (3.) ‘Unwritten Tradi- 
tions,’ (4.) the unanimous consent of the fathers, (5.) interpreted by 
an infallible judge, who has not spoken for near three hundred years; 
and whose writings and interpretations makes a library in a dead 
language. And now when Mr. Hughes ascends the desk with these 
ponderous tomes, he has our Bible, to interpret privately, that is, to 
do it himself — and all the difficulties of the Protestants attend him 
too — for he is infallible; and he has also the Apocrpha, ‘unwritten 
traditions” (if he can find them) ‘the unanimous consent of the 
Fathers,’ and the immense volumes of decrees, canons, bulls, the 
missal and breviary, to interpret and preach. This Mr. Hughes owns 
in the last letter; where he says ‘we exercise our judgment, and ar- 
rive by a rational process of investigation at the proof of our doc- 
trines.’ And now when Dr. White, or Dr. Brantly, or Dr. Miller 
ascends the pulpit with the pure unincumbered Bible, are they not 
as likely to get at the truth as Mr. Hughes? Either Mr. Hughes is 
infallible, which I think, now, no body will imagine, or else these Pro- 
testant preachers, are, to say the least, as likely as he, to be safe in- 
structors of the people. In a word there is unanswerable proof that 
if your Church has infallibility it is perfectly useless; and cannot be 
applied unless every priest and every prelate be personally infallible. 
But your infallibility is a figment; and your rule of faith was never 
established by the Lord Jesus Christ. 

But before I close this letter I wish in preparation for the discus- 
sion of other topics, briefly to show the necessity of a Reformation 
in the Church of Rome at the time when Luther appeared, as well as 
for ages before. 

As my remaining space is small, and the sources of information 
are almost without limit, I will here confine myself to one or two 
authorities. Take for example, the letter written by four Cardinals 
and four other Prelates, to the Pope, by his order on the subject ot 
reform in the church. (As this letter extends to many pages, you 
will not charge me with garbling if I give only extracts. The Cath- 
olic Herald, however, may have the whole of it for publication.) 
They tell his Holiness ‘of abuses and most grievous distempers, 
wherewith the church of God, and especially the court of Rome, has 
for a long time been affected; whereby it had come to pass, that these 
pestilent diseases growing to their height by little and little, the 
church as we see is upon the very brink of ruin.’ ‘Your holiness 
very well understands the original of these mischiefs; that some 
Popes your predecessors, having itching ears, as says the Apostle 
Paul, heaped up teachers after their own lusts, not to learn from them 


210 


CONTROVERSY. 


what they ought to do, but that they should take pains and employ 
their wit to find out ways how it might be lawful for them to do what 
they pleased. Hence it is come to pass that there have been Doctors 
ever ready to maintain that all benefices being the Pope’s, and the 
Lord having a right to sell what is his own, it must necessarily fol- 
low that the Pope is not capable of the guilt of Simony; in so much 
that the Pope’s will and pleasure, whatever it be, must needs be the 
rule of all that he does; which doutless would end in believing 
every thing lawful that he had a mind to do. From this source, as 
from the Trojan horse, so many abuses, and such mortal diseases have 
broken forth into the church of God, which have reduced her as we 
see almost to a state of desperation; the fame of things having come 
to the ears even of Infidels, (let your holiness believe us speaking what 
we know) who deride Christianity more for this than for any thing 
else; so that through ourselves, the name of Christ is blasphemed 
among the nations.’ They proceed to say, ‘we will touch upon the 
matters only that belong to the office of universal pastor, some also 
that are proper to the Roman Bishop.’ They dwell with peculiar em- 
phasis upon the point ‘that it is not lawful for the Pope who is Christ’s 
Vicar, to make any gain to himself of the use of the keys.’ Anoth- 
er abuse is, ‘that in the ordination of Priests no manner of care and 
diligence is used; the most uneducated youths of evil manners, are 
admitted to holy orders; from hence grow innumerable scandals; and 
the reverence of God’s worship is well nigh extinguished.’ ‘Anoth- 
er abuse is the changing of benefices upon contracts that are all of 
them simonical, and in which no regard is had to any thing but gain.’ 
‘Almost all the Pastors are withdrawn from their flocks which are al- 
most every where entrusted with heirelings.’ ‘In the orders of the 
religious, many of them are so degenerate that they are grown scan- 
dalous.’ ‘Another abuse, is that with Nuns under the care of con- 
ventual Friars, in most Monasteries, public sacrileges are committed, 
to the intolerable scandal of the citizens !’ ‘The collectors for the 
Holy Ghost, St. Anthony, and others of this kind, put cheats upon 
rustics, and simple people; and entangle them in a world of supersti- 
tion.’ ‘Another abuse is the absolution of a simonical person — this 
plague reigns in the church — they buy their absolution, and so they 
keep the benefice they bought before.’ ‘This city of Rome is both the 
mother of the church and mistress of other churches, wherefore the 
worship of God and purity of manners should flourish there most of 
all. But yet holy father ail strangers are scandalized when they go 
into St. Peter’s church and see what slovenly, ignorant priests say 
mass there.’ ‘Nay in this city ******* walk about as if they were 
goodly matrons, and are atnoon*day followed up and down by men of 
the best account in the families of Cardinals, and by clergymen.’— 
‘We hope that you are chosen to restore the name of Christ forgotten 
by the nations and even by us the clergy, that hereafter it may live 
in our hearts, and appear in our actions; to heal our diseases, to re- 
duce the flock of Christ into one sheepfold, to remove from us that in- 
dignation and vengeance of God, which we deserve, which is now 
ready to fall upon us, which now hangs over our heads !’ This por- 
tentous letter was addressed to Paul the 3d. One of its authors was 


CONTROVERSY. 


21l 

afterwards a pope himself. The picture it gives of the state of the 
church, leaves room for no comment. I only add, that long before 
this, Council after Council had decreed a reformation to be indispen- 
sable; — Pope after Pope had owned that it was needed— *and Europe 
resounded with the call for Reformation. I am yours, &c. 

John Breckinridge. 

P. S. I cannot stoop to notice any farther your impertinent calls for 
a name. Mr. Burtt was the original, responsible informant. In him 
my information terminates. He informed the person who wrote to 
me. His name you have; and can claim no more. J. B. 


CONTROVERSY. No. XIX. 


RULE OF FAITH. 

Philadelphia , June 6, 1833. 

To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 

Rev. Sir , — I pay no attention to the charges of ‘insolence, 5 ‘imper- 
tinence 5 ‘temper, 5 &c. which you are politely pleased to make against 
me. If these traits were so manifest in my letters, it would have 
been quite unnecsssary for you to apprise the public of the fact. On 
these matters, as well as all the rest, the public will form its own 
judgment without the aid of direction from either of us. 

You say that my proposal to meet you before the General Assembly 
for the purpose of exposing the falsified quotations in your letters ‘is 
unfortunately too late. 5 I regret this very much. But you are aware 
that the Bishops continued in session, long enough, after you had re- 
ceived my last letter, for you to have the matter decided before them. 
If you have not done so, and will not expose yourself to the conse- 
quences of having the questions of fact, touching your quotations, 
decided by an impartial umpire, then I can only surmise that you have 
your reasons for your present course. Prudence, we are told, is the 
better part of valour. Experience has taught us both, that no Pres- 
byterian, who has the reputation of a scholar to lose, is willing to 
risk it on the decision of your case. If you would only reciprocate 
my courtesy, and choose a Catholic umpire, he would soon decide. 
None of those motives of delicacy, which influenced Doctor Wylie 
would occur to him. But the public may expect to see the extent of 
your falsifications of authorities, in the shape of an appendix to this 
Controversy. The original text and context, placed in juxta-posi- 
tion with the garblings contained in your letters, will make the mat- 
ter plain to all. 

I was quite at a loss to know how you would exculpate yourself, 
for having suppressed the passages which I quoted in my last letter. 
But the moment I saw your reply, the whole difficulty vanished. It 
seems that in your quotations, you are scrupulous only about the sense. 
And as the author did not understand what he was writing, you mere- 
ly ‘add 5 or ‘omit 5 such words and sentences as may be necessary to 
make him express the meaning which you intend to convey. It is a pity 
this Presbyterian license is not conceded to the members of the Bar. 
Then we should see the authorities of Blackstone, and Littleton, 
quoted to defend the guilty culprit, and screen him from the opera- 
tions of justice. But the advocate who should be detected, sup- 
pressing a sentence in the middle of a citation, and thus perverting 
the meaning of such authority, would, I believe, get permission to 
quit the court-house. But ministers of the Gospel, it seems, may do 
such things with impunity. 

In fact, so far from being abashed by the exposure, you seem to de- 
rive new courage from it. One of the suppressed passages was as 


CONTROVERSY. 


213 


follows: — The Council decreed that those who died in the crime and 
guilt of heresy, should not receive the rites of ‘Christian burial.’ 
'This shows, says Mr. Breckinridge, ‘that the Holy Council would not 
let the poor Heretics rest even in the graves.’ No, Rev. Sir, — for 
the ‘poor heretics’ were riot dead yet. it merely shows that when 
thev should die, they were i?ot to receive the rites of burial, after the 
manner of the Christians from whom they separated themselves, by 
heresy. ‘No offering is to be made for them’ says the council. This 
shows, says Mr. Breckinridge, ‘that the Holy Council superadded the 
pains of hell, to murder, and to the refusal of Christian burial.’ Why 
sir, with the aid of your pen^this’ may ‘show’ any thing— and to 
those who are willing to see, it shows a great deal. "Comment is un- 
necessary. 

But why should you not in your turn accuse me also of misrepre- 
sentation ? A nd especially as you never attempt to prove what you 
assert, in making such charges. 1 find myself consequently arraign- 
ed on seven different counts. To wit: 1st. The Confession of Faith. 
2. The persecution of the Catholics of Maryland by the Puritans. 3. 
The hanging of the Quakers in New England by the same sect. 4. 
The principle laid down by John Wesley on the subject of tolerating 
Catholics. 5. The reference to your acknowledgment at our late in- 
terview of having garbled the extract from the 4th council of Late- 
ran. 6. My charge against you, of having falsified the words of Bel- 
larmine. — *To ail of which I plead not guilty, for the following rea- 
sons, in order. 

1. As to the Confession of Faith, I quoted the words, referred to 
page, specified the Publisher and the date of publication. I could 
not be more scrupulously exact in my reference. Did I say any 
thing that I did not prove? You have* not been able to point it out. 
It is true there is a ‘reformed’ edition of the confession, exactly twelve 
years old, from which it seems the ‘offensive passage have been solemn- 
ly rejected.’ But I quoted from the Confession, which according to 
Dr. Miller both Ministers and candidates, had been ‘obliged’ to adopt, 
as the summary of the Bible, in the year 1729. How then am I guil- 
ty of misrepresentation ? Was I deceived by Dr. Miller’s authority? 

2. In my letter No. 15, 1 quoted from Jefferson’s Notes on Virgi- 
nia. He testifies that the Puritans, persecuted by the Episcopalians 
of Virginia, emigrated in considerable numbers to Maryland, to en- 
joy under a Popish Proprietary that liberty of conscience which had 
been denied them, by their fellow Protestants. I quoted also Wynn’s 
Hist, of Brit. Empire in America, for proof that they dispossessed 
the Catholics, who had thus received them, of civil power as soon as 
they were able. And that, on the Revolution in England, they adopt- 
ed the whole penal code of persecution against them. Consequent- 
ly there is neither mistake nor misrepresentation in this. I merely 
gave the testimony, not of Catholic, but of Protestant historians. If 
then all this is, as the word of Mr. Breckinridge assures us ‘an utter 
fabrication’ then the issue is between him and the Protestant writers 
whom I quoted at the time. 

3. As to the persecution and hanging of the Quakers in New Eng- 
land I gave also Protestant authority, Hist, of Baptists in New Eng- 

26 


214 


CONTROVERSY. 


land, vol. l.p. 390.* — where, besides others, whose names are given, 
there is an account of a female, named Mary Dyer, having been hang- 
ed for the crime of Quakerism on the 1st of June, 1660. Consequent- 
ly, there is no mistake, in this statement. You call the authors of 
these persecutions ‘unto the death,’ ‘Congregationalists.’ But the dis- 
tinction between them, and Presbyterians, is too fine for modern pow- 
ers of discrimination. As I give my authority for the fact, at the 
time, I am the more surprised at your asking, ‘upon what authority I 
have ventured to utter so unfounded a charge ?’ Unfounded ! 

4. The next case has reference to my remarks on the general pro- 
position laid down by John Wesley, and if that be incorreet, again, 
let Wesley’s own words be responsible. Two respectable gentle- 
men, of the Methodist persuasion, called on me the other day, to say, 
that, in their opinion, I had been unjust towards him, by the isolated 
manner, in which his sentiment was introduced. I felt obliged to 
them for their politeness, in advising me of what they conceived to be 
my mistake, and what they regarded at the same time as an injury to 
one, for whose memory, it is but natural that they should entertain re- 
spect. Accordingly I shall, as agreed upon, submit that portion of 
the context, which they think necessary to elucidate the meaning of 
the passage already quoted.......‘That no Roman Catholic does or can 

give security for his allegiance or peaceable behavionr, I prove thus: 
It is a Roman Catholic maxim, established, not by private men, but, 
by a public Council (so said Mr. Wesley j that, ‘no faith can be kept 
with heretics.’ This has been openly avowed by the Council of Con- 
stance, but it never was openly disclaimed. Whether private per- 
sons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome: 
but as long as it is so, nothing can be more plain, than that the mem- 
bers of that Church can give no reasonable security to any govern- 
ment of their allegiance or peaceable behaviour; therefore, they ought 
not to be tolerated by any government, Protestant, Mahometan or Pa- 
gan.’ 

The words which I quoted, was to show Mr. Wesley’s sentiments 
on the subject of tolerance and persecution. It is not an accidental 
phrase, snatched from the middle of a paragraph. But it is a cool 
deliberate conclusion, evolved with syllogistic precision from a train 
of artificial reasoning, and apparently sober reflection. But could 
not, and did not, every persecutor, justify his cruelty by reasons 
which were satisfactory to his own mind? — But reasons, of the jus- 
tice of which, he never could convince the victim of his intolerance. 

The decision of the council of Constance, referred to by Mr. Wes- 
ley, had its meaning qualified by the very circmstances in which is 
originated — which I shall briefly state. John IIuss, a Priest of Bohe- 
mia, was cited before the Council; — he recognised the tribunal;— and 
obeyed the citation. His doctrines were condemned as heretical, 
and on his refusal to retract them, he was given over to the civil laws 
of that city, which was free and independent. According to these 
laws, death was the penalty of the crime, of which Huss had been 
convicted;— and accordingly, like Michael Servetus in Geneva, he 
was burned to death. 


CONTROVERSY. 


215 


But then, the ‘faith’ on which Wesley built his syllogism, had been 
pledged to John IJuss, by the Emperor Sigismund in the form of a 
safe conduct, or passport going to, and returning from the Council. — 
Now this ‘faith’ had not been kept with the heretic, since he was not 
allowed to return; but was executed — whilst the Council decided, 
that the party who had pledged this ‘faith,’ was not bound by its obli- 
gation, for the following reasons: 1. Because the safe conduct grant- 
ed by the Emperor could not deprive the Council of its spiritual right 
to determine whether the doctrines of Huss were heresies, or not. 2. 
Because it could not controul the administration of the civil laws of 
an independent state, (as Constance was) in which, the Emperor had 
no authority. 3. Because Huss had attempted to escape, and there- 
by forfeited the protection of his passport, even if it could have pro- 
tected him. 4. Because, it was understood between the Emperor and 
Huss, in their interview at Prague, that if the Council should condemn 
his doctrines, he (Huss) would retract them; — the Emperor telling, 
him, notwithstanding th^ passport, that if he did not retract, in sucli 
a case, he, himself, would light the pile to consume Huss. These are 
facts of the case, and the decree simply declares that, as the Empe- 
ror had done ‘what was in his power,’ — having no power over the doc- 
trinal decision of the Council; nor yet over the magistrates of Con- 
stance; there was no violation of the ‘faith’ he had pledged by his pass- 
port. Here are the whole extent, origin and circumstances of that 
famous decree, of which the Catholics of the British empire have been 
persecuted for the last three hundred years. This decision, thus tru- 
ly explained, is what Mr. Wesley perverts into a ‘Roman Catholic 
maxim,’ and from which he concludes, ‘therefore. Catholics ought not 
to be tolerated by any Government, Protestant, Mahometan, or Pa- 
gan.’ It never was a Roman Catholic maxim, except when Protest- 
ant calumny made it so. 

But the occasion on which Mr. Wesley gave publicity to this un- 
christian and intolerant sentiment, shows to what an extent his judg- 
ment, or his feelings had been perverted. It was at a time when the 
friends of civil and religious freedom in Great Britain, were strug- 
gling for the repeal of some of the most unnatural laws that ever were 
trained by the ingenious cruelty of man. The worst of them had 
been in operation against the Catholics for nearly one hundred years, 
having been enacted in 1 699. It was for the purpose of preventing 
the repeal of these persecuting laws that the sanguinary mob, of which 
Lord George Gordon was the prime spirit, had formed itself into 
what was called the ‘Protestant association.’ Under the guidance of 
this fanatic, first a Protestant and then a Jew, the Catholics of Lon- 
don were sought for to be massacred; — their houses and chapels burn- 
ed to the ground; and their clergy and themselves hunted into holes 
and corners. The Hon. Edmund Burke a Protestant, says, in refer- 
ence to these Protestant barbarities so well calculated to stir the blood 
of men, that, on the part of the Catholics, ‘not a hand was moved to 
retaliate, or even to defend. Had the conflict once begun’ says he, 
‘the rage of their persecutors would have redoubled* Thus fury in- 
creasing by the reverberation of outrages, house being fired for house, 
and church for chapel, I am convinced that no power under Hea- 


216 


CONTROVERSY. 


ven could have perverted a general conflagration; and at this day 
London would have been a tale.’ (Speech at Bristol, vol. 2. Bost. ed. 
page 261.) • 

Mr. Wesley was no stranger to their principles, and we may infer 
the character of his own from the fact, that in his old age he stood 
with all the influence of his reputed sanctity as the public defender 
of this ‘Protestant association;’ and attempted to prove by a syllogism, 
that ‘Catholics ought not to be tolerated by any Government, Protest- 
ant, Mahometan, or Pagan.’ A more savage theorem never proceed- 
ed from a Christian pen. Still Mr. Wesley said he would not perse- 
cute any man for his religion. But the Apostles tells us, ‘to love, not 
in word and in tongue, but in truth and in deed.’ Now I submit to 
the gentlemen who called on me, to say, in candor, whether I had 
been unjust towards the memory of Mr. Wesley in my former re- 
mark. 

5. You deny that, in our ‘late interview, you had acknowledged 
having garbled the extract from the 4th Council of Lateran, by ‘leav- 
ing out whole snentences.’ And characterise my assertion to that 
effect as a ‘gratuitous misrepresentation.’ Let us see. In reference 
to this extract, in responding at the time, to my question — ‘Do you 
give it as continuous and literal r’ Your reply wa**I answer unhesi- 
tatingly — I do.’ In our interview you acknowledged that you had 
omitted whole sentences ‘in the extract ’ How then, could you have 
said, that it was ‘continuous ?’ In your last letter you admit, that the 
extract was not ‘continuous,’ by telling us that you ‘give an abstract 
or continued sense of the whole passage.” How then, can you say, 
that it is, ‘gatuitous misrepresentation’ to have given you credit for 
this acknowledgment? Let the public judge by the facts. 

6. You were detected in representing a chapter of Bellarmine that, 
‘it was the duty of the Church to burn heretics.’ Bellarmine never 
said so. But as it was the ‘sense’ you will contend. No, Rev. Sir, it 
was not the s^nse; and even if it were, it was literary forgery, to place 
it between inverted commas, as it were the very words of the author. 
Now, however, you give a new quotation, and transfer it to be the 
‘very first sentence in the chapter.’ It would be, the ‘first’ sentence, 
were it not that there are in the chapter two paragraphs going before 
it. Bellarmine contended that the church ‘may and ought,’ to cast 
off heretics, from her communion. This is Presbyterian, as well as 
Catholic doctrine. Bellarmine contended that heretics, so cast off, 
‘may and ought’ to be punished ‘by the civil power, with temporal 
penalties and even death itself,’ as the case may require. This is not, 
never was, never will be, any part or portion of Catholic doctrine. — 
And in the paragraph immediately preceding that which you call, ‘the 
very first sentence of the chapter,’ Bellarmine quotes Calvin, Beza, 
and othef ‘Reformers,’ to show that they ail held the principle which 
he was about to lay down. It is singular enough that whenever he 
wished to establish the principle of persecution, he invariably quoted 
the authority and practice of John Calvin. How much could he have 
strengthened the argument of intolerance, if, living at this day, he 
might appeal to facts and show, as I can, that persecution even unto 
blood, has, in every country, attended the political ascendency of Cal- 
vinism ! 


CONTROVERSY. 


21 7 

7. The ‘fact* on whieh you lay such emphasis, touching the case of 
•John Huss and Jerome of Prague,’ has been sufficiently disposed of 
under the head of Mr. Wesley’s case. Protestants look upon these 
heretics as ‘Reformers,' — but they were such ‘Reformers,’ as would 
have been consigned to the gallows, if they had preached their doc- 
trines in Boston, in the year 1660. 

The remainder of your letter is miscellaneous. With regard to the 
Bull of Innocent VIII. the original of which is ‘in the University of 
Cambridge,’ (as you tell us) it appears you made a ‘mistake’ of ten 
years as to its date. But such ‘mistakes’ seem to be the very source 
and secret of your prowess. Accordingly gathering strength from 
exposure, and having an eye to the susceptibilities of human sympa- 
thy, you tell us quite pathetically: — ‘I spread out to your view also the 
infamous Bull of Pope Innocent VIII. against the poor peeled and 
butchered Waldenses.’ If they were ‘peeled and butchered,’ it was 
wasting parchment to make any decree against them. Parsons, it 
seems, can issuse Bulls as well as Popes. You ask me how ‘I meet 
it?’ I answer, so long as it is in the ‘University of Cambridge,’ and 
no where else, J am not disposed to meet it at all. You ask me, ‘Do 
I deny it?’ And without waiting for my answer, you reply that ‘I 
dare not.’ Now I reply, that I ‘dare,’ and do, deny it, flatly. We 
have advanced too far in the discussion, for me or the public to receive 
your assertion, as authority for its existence in ‘Cambridge.’ — And 
there is no such document found in the Bullarium of Innocent VIII. 
which I have examined. Besides, the very history of it given by you, 
carries with it, to those who are acquainted with the subject, prima 
facei evidence of fabrication. Lawyers, cunning rogues, have a way 
of sifting and exposing false testimony, which the witness himself 
never suspected. 

But the 3d Council of Lateran, after having directed with great 
cruelty, that when the ‘poor heretics’ died, ‘they should not receive 
the rites of Christian burial’ in their interment; — and that ‘no obla- 
tion should be made for them;’ — decreed also that it was lawful for 
princes to reduce those other ‘poor heretics’ (whose history you 
thought proper to suppress) to slavery; for no crime in the world ! ex- 
cept ‘destroying churches and monasteries, sparing neither widows 
nor virgins, neither old nor young, neither sex nor age, but desolat- 
ing every thing, after the manner of pagans ! ! ! On this my Rev. op- 
ponent says, ‘Tell me then, Mr. Hughes, ‘are life, liberty, and the pur- 
suit of happiness, unalienable rights? So says our memorable Decla- 
ration of Independence.’ I will tell you then, as you do not seem to 
be aware of the fact, that Pope Alexander III. under whom this Coun- 
cil was held, did more for the extinction of slavery than all the Con- 
* gress and all the societies that ever existed in America. He abolish- 
ed it as far as he could, and in allowing these ‘poor heretics,’ who com- 
mitted such crimes against society to be reduced to slavery, he only 
made an exception to his own laws. But when you wished to pay a 
compliment to ‘our memorable Declaration of Independence, were 
you not rather unfortunate in couplingit with an allusion to the ques- 
tion of slavery? Was the allusion made ironically ? It reminds me 
of the negro slave, who, on his way to Georgia through Washington, 


218 


CONTROYEKSV. 


shook his manacled hands at the Capitol, and began to sing, ‘Hail Co- 
lumbia, happy land/ 

Then follows the usual train of ‘little questions.’ l.'What have 
you said to explain your dilemma, which makes you justify the cru- 
cifixion of Christ or give up your infallibility? Not a word/ There 
was no dilemma in the case. The infallibility of the Synagogue ceas- 
ed from the moment that Christ made the revelation of his doctrines. 
This I had ‘said/ 2. ‘What have you said in answer to my three- 
fold exposure of the doctrine of infallibility, in my last letter? Not a 
word/ The only ‘exposure’ I could discover in your last letter, was 
the exposure of yourself/ And on this I said what I was compelled 
to say in truth; to which, you reply with the argument of epithets ‘in- 
solence/ ‘slander/ ‘bully/ ‘impertinent/ and other graceful expres- 
sions. 3. ‘What have you said of the Apocryphal book ? Not a word/ 
Why yes, I said and proved that the Reformers turned those books out 
of the canon; — that Calvin cut off the Apocalypse, Luther the Epis- 
tle of the Hebrews, St. James and St. Jude; and I showed that Pro- 
testants have the same authority for the books which they regard as 
apocryphai, which they have for any of those which are called deute- 
ro-canonical. Do you not recollect the letter in which I convicted you 
of having made a little mistake of about eleven hundred years, in re- 
ference to the formation of the canon? 4. ‘What have you said of 
unwritten traditions ? Not a word.’ The same answer suits all ques- 
tions. 5. ‘The unanimous consent of the Fathers. Where is it?’ It 
is in every doctrine of the Catholic Church — in all those dogmas 
which are held by Catholic faith — and rejected by Protestant opin- 
ions. 6. ‘I offered to discuss with you the evidence of the Divinity 
of our Lord, from the word of God/ You did; and I referred you 
to the Universalist with whom you agree, as to the rule of faith. 7. 
‘I put four questions to you — and yet small as they are, you do not 
attempt to answer them/ The reader will observe that it w r as in an- 
swer to these questions, that I gave an extract from Rushworth, show- 
ing that the Episcopal prayer book was put on the Presbyterian Index 
Expurgatorious, as a prohibited book. The reading of it, was, for the 
first ‘offence/ five pounds fine; the second, ten; and the third, ‘impri- 
sonment/ 

As to ‘Grotius, Locke, Milton, Saurin, and Young’ — ask the first 
educated Catholic you meet, and perhaps, notwithstanding the pre- 
tended prohibition, he will convince you that he is better acquainted 
with those authors, than some Protestant ministers. Even your let- 
ters are read; and Catholics in the perusal, are comforted with the re- 
collection of the divine words, ‘Blessed are you when men shall say 
all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake/ 

Your reference to Bellarmine (‘Book 3. chap. 23 of Laics’) is at- 
tended with the usual fatality. There is no 23d chapter in the book. 
Bellarmine in the 22d and last chapter, speaking of the circumstan- 
ces in which ‘heretics, thieves and other wicked men, are to be rooted 
out/ lays down the rule nearly as quoted. But the scrap of Latin 
which you have cited, in parenthesis, though consisting of three words 
only, is falsified. ‘Sunt procul extirpandi’ are the words of your let- 
ter, ‘Sunt pvocul dubio extirpandi,’ are those of the author. But, as 


CONTBOVE&SY. 


219 


visual, you will say that you give the sense! and ask with increasing 
energy, what difference is caused, in the meaning, by the suppression ! 
Yon might also have told your readers, that Bellarmine in the remarks 
referred to, gave them as the sentiments of St. Augustine, who is ra- 
ther a favourite with Presbyterians. He gives the book and chapter 
of that Father’s works where the sentiments may be found. 

Having been pressed at an early stage of the controversy by argu- 
ments on the rule of faith, you seem to have thought that topic which 
would be more in accordance with the prejudices ot Protestants 
would suit better. Persecution was a favourite theme. It was most 
likely to catch the eye of popular feeling. But the tables have been 
turned against you. It has been shown on the testimony of Protest- 
ant writers, that all the Reformers were persecutors — whilst the Pres- 
byterians, when they had political power, sacrificed a greater, number 
of human victims to the demon of intolerance than any other denomi- 
nation. There is no country, no colony in which Presbyterians wield- 
ed the sword of civil power, without dying it, in the blood of perse- 
cution. What advantage then Rev. Sir, have you derived from the 
discussion of this unpleasant topic, which, considering the sect whose 
name you bear, you should have been the last to introduce. The re- 
ligion of Christ does not authorise persecution — and yet Protestants 
have persecuted quite as fiercely as Catholics. This is the amount 
of it. 

But then the rule of faith — to which you promised ‘strict adhe- 
rence.’ What has become of it? Your last letter, brief as the al- 
lusion is to that question gives us a new' view of the subject. Here 
are your words, 'ail that I have to say now is this, that throughout 
your attempts at discussion you have called private interpretation 
our rule of faith. The Bible is the infallible rule of faith. The Bi- 
J the use of the rule. If men pervert 



In this declaration, the 'radical de- 


lusion’ of Protestantism stands confessed. Is it not by 'private in- 
terpretation’ that Protestants are directed to understand the Bible ? 
It certainly is. And here is the advocate of that principle declaring 
that ‘private interpretation is not the rule of faith !’ 

But the real question is, how can a Protestant know what are the 
doctrines of Jesus Christ? From the Bible. The Bible on the shelf? 
No. Then it must be the Bible as he understands it. No; that would 
be 'private interpretation.’ And Mr. Breckinridge has just told him 
that ‘this is not his rule of faith.’ Here then is the acknowledgment 
of all that my argument required. Protestants have ‘perverted’ that 
sacred book to the support of their own heretical opinions — and yet 
they charge upon the teaching of the Bible the impieties of their con- 
tradictory doctrines. The doctrines contained in the Bible are the doc- 
trines of Christ, but ‘if men pervert them,’ by ‘private interpretation,’ 
then ‘they are not the doctrines of Christ.’ 

Where then, is that ‘infallible Rule of Faith established by Christ 
to guide us in matters of Religion* and to determine disputes in his 
Church?’ Let Protestants look to it. ‘He that believeth not,’ says 
the ‘Son of God, shall be condemned.’ Christ would not have made 
this declaration, without providing some means by which Christians 


220 


CONTROVERSY. 


could find out, what they are to believe — whilst Mr. Brekinridge is 
compelled finally to admit, that no such means exist among Protes- 
tants. ‘Private interpretation,’ he says, is not the Rule of Faith.’ 

The reader who will take the pains to look back, to my arguments 
on the Catholic Rule of belief, as laid down in letters No. 5. 7. 9. will 
perceive the solidity of the basis, on which our principle is establish- 
ed. He will perceive that it is founded on the words of Christ and 
his apostles, sustained by the testimony of ecclesiastical history,- and 
in perfect accordance with the light of reason itself. Let him com- 
pare letter with letter, and decide whether there has been, amidst all 
the assertion, crimination, garbled authorities and abuse with which 
the Catholic Church has been assailed, one genuine proof adduced 
against the Catholic Rule of Faith, or in support of the Protestant prin- 
ciple. On the other hand let him decide whether it has not been proved 
by facts, undisputed and indisputable, that the Protestant principle of 
religions guidance, is that which was adopted by all the heretics of 
ancient and modern times, which has conducted the Protestants on 
the continent of Europe into the substance of infidelity, and which 
is bringing about the same state of things in our own country. Tracts, 
Bible classes, Sunday Schools, Camp Meetings, Revivals, and the ge- 
neral machinery of Protestantism, of which the most important part, 
are the ministers themselves, may arrest the progress of infidelity for 
a while; but the physical excitation produced by these irregular and 
artificial means cannot last The principle on which the whole sys- 
tem rests, is intrinsically fallacious. 

Perceiving, Rev. Sir, that you are anxious to pass to the second to- 
pic of discussion, I am now prepared to indulge you in your desire. 
The next question is this: — ‘Whether the Protestant Religion is the 
Religion of Christ?’ Six months ago I requested you to furnish me 
with the definition of the ‘Protestant Religion.’ You promised, but 
you have not performed. Be pleased then, in your next letter to tell 
me what the ‘Protestant Religion’ is. I wish to take your own defi- 
nition, so that there may be no mistake on either side. It is unneces- 
sary to add any thing more to this communication, since the subject 
is fairly exhausted by your unexpected declaration that ‘private inter- 
pretation is not the Protestant rule of faith. ’ The Bible, without this, 
it cannot be. Yours, &c. 

Jno. Hughes. 

P. S. In the postscript to your last letter, you say as follows: ‘I can- 
not stoop to notice any farther your impertinent (0 fie \) calls for a 
name. Mr. Burtt was the original, responsible informant.’ Then, 
Rev. Sir, Mr. Burtt shall be held to his responsibility. The charge 
was a gratuitous falsehood and calumny. And as Mr. Burtt is ‘re- 
sponsible, let him see to it. 


CONTROVERSY No. NX. 


RULE OF FAITH. 


To the Rev. John Hughes. 


Philadelphia , Jane IS, 1833. 


Sir , — The celebrated Pascal, himself a Romanist, has said in his 
Provincial Letters, against the Jesuits, that they publicly maintain- 
ed this opinion, viz: it is only a venal sin to calumniate and ruin the 
credit of such as speak evil of you, by accusing them of false crimes. 
To v>hat other school of morals shall I trace the unblushing and false 
charges which your recent letter abounds. Your current argument 
which stands as the solitary reply to decrees of Councils, and Bulls 
of Popes, to authenticate public records, and undisputable facts, is this 
-—‘it is false,’ ‘you have garbled.’ 

Your Bible, your public Prayers, your Breviary, and Mass-book, 
your Catechism, decrees of Councils and Bulls of Popes, being in a 
dead language, the only way to examine your system is to bring them 
to pubiic view by translations. My letters (as you know) have abound- 
ed with such matter, drawn from the originals — and very often the 
barbarous Latin has been given side by side with the translations. — 
Finding these authorities too stubborn to be tortured from their plain 
and terrible sense, you have set yourself *to defame the witness, and 
thus destroy the testimony. With ignorant or prejudiced persons, 
your strong assertions may have some weight. But every scholar must 
see that you assail my character in vain; that these authorities have 
been honestly adduced; that they expose your church; and that you 
do not even attempt an answer to the body of them. Thus, for exam- 
ple, your answer to the Bull of Innocent the 8th, was that no such 
Bull was issued in 14 17, and you intimated that a mistake in the date 
was a proof of forgery. ‘Such Bulls, you say, come from another 
quarter.’ When pressed by the question, was not such a Bull pub- 
lished in 1487, have actually the unthinking hardihood to deny that 
there ever was such a Bull. ‘I do deny it flatly.’ Now for the proof. 
In Baronius’s Annals, 19th vol. page 3§6, section 25, we are told that 
the sprouts of the Waldensian heresy re appearing, according to cus- 
tom, an Inquisitor was appointed; but these Heretics arose in arms, 
and slew his servant. 


Qua indignitate permotus, Innocen- 
tus, Gallos, Sabaudos,ac Germanos, 
inquorum limitibus, impietas defixa 
hserebat. ad hasreticos delendos expe- 
dire arma jussit; et gravibus pcenis, 
haereticorum fautores perculit: turn 
Albertum de Capitanies Archidiacon- 
on Cremonsem,amplissimis instructum 
inandatis decrevit ut seligosam crucis 
militiam ad Waldcnses exscindendos 
promulgaret, acprincipes, et Episco- 
pos in eosidem concitaret — quibus li- 
teris hae temporis nota adjecta est. 

27 


By which indignity Innocent, much 
excited, ordered the Gauls, Savoyese, 
and Germans# within whose territories 
the impiety still remained firmly root, 
ed, to take up arms for the destruction 
of the Heretics; and he smote the fa- 
vourers of the Heretics with heavy 
punishments: at the same time he com- 
missioned Albert de Capitanies, Arch- 
deacon of Cremona, with ample pow- 
ers to publish a crusade for the exter- 
mination of the Waldenses, and to stir 
up Princes and Bishops against them. 


222 


CONTROVERSY. 


Dat. Romac. aquid S- Petri im. anno in- The date of this document is as fol- 
carnationis Dominicse 1477. V. Kal. lows: Given at Rome at St. Peter’s, in 
Mail. Pontificatus nostri anno iii. the year of our Lord’s incarnat ion 

1487, 5th of Kalends of May, and of 
our Pontificate the 3d. 

Here, then, we have the testimony of your own great annalist. — 
How will you settle the matter with him, I know not. Perhaps this 
is only his opinion — surely it is not a Protestant fabrication. But 
here is the Bull, Brief, or whatever you please to call it, the public de- 
cree of the Pope, ordering three States to take up arms for the exter- 
mination of heretics; and in the name of God, commissioning Princes 
and Bishops to destroy them ! Whether, then, we regard the detest- 
able act of the Pope, or your ‘flat denial’ of it, the reader must alike 
be assured of the guilt of your church, and the shifts of her defender ! 

l.In your letter (No. 17) you said ‘the Episcopalians of Virginia 
persecuted the Presbyterians; the Catholics of Maryland protected 
them. The gratitude of the Presbyterians was the gratitude of the 
serpent, that stings the bosom which fosteredit. They put down, 
and persecuted these very Catholics as soon as it was in their power.’ 
In letter (No. 18) 1 told you it was ‘an utter fabrication.’, (n your 
last letter you reply ‘He (Mr. Jefferson) testifies that the Puritans 
(mark reader, not Presbyterians, Puritans,) persecuted by the Episco- 
palians of Virginia, emigrated in considerable numbers to Maryland,’ 
&c. &c. And is this the only defence for the unfounded charge ? Are 
the Puritans and Presbyterians the same people in history P Does not 
your defence confess that it was a fabrication ? I would gladly at- 
tribute this to ignorance. 

2. You are equally unfortunate in the case of the Quakers. Hav- 
ing said ‘the Quakers of New England were hanged by the Presby- 
terians,’ I denied it, and called on you for proof? You call the au- 
thors of this persecution unto death, ‘Congregationalists.’ ‘But the 
distinction between them and Presbyterians, is too fine for modern 
powers of discrimination.’ A man who writes with your freedom, 
should have a good memory. You can see no distinction between 
Presbyterians and Congregationalists, where it is convenient to make 
the terms convertible! Remember this when you speak of the divi- 
sions of Protestants ! 

3. Your defence of the proceedings against John Huss, is certainly 
candid and* ominous. It is however a misrepresentation of the case 
in many of the most important particulars. Lenfant tells us that 
Huss said, in the presence of the Council, I came to this city relyino- 
on the public faith of the Emperor who is now present. He then 
looked him in the face; and Sigismond blushed for his owm baseness, 
feeling the truth of the reproach. When the Diet of Worms plead 
this example of the Council of Constance, and of Sigismond, in order 
to induce Charles V.to betray Luther, he replied, ‘I am resolved not 
to blush with my predecessors.’ And ought not you, Sir, to blush for 
defending such a deed ? Dupin (your own historian( says, ‘The Coun- 
cil of Constance being now appointed, the Pope and Emperor invit- 
ed John Huss to come thither, and give an account of his doctrine — 
and that he might do it with all freedom, the Emperor gave him a safe 


CONTROVERSY. 


223 


conduct, whereby he gave him leave to come freely to the Council 
and return again.’ But more of this hereafter; l only add now, that 
we may see something of the spirit of this Council, which thus dis- 
posed of Huss’s departing soul, ‘we devote your soul to infernal de- 
vils.’ (Tuam animam devovemus diabolis infernis:) and, as Dupin 
informs us, the Bishops who were appointed by the Council to degrade 
him, and prepare him for the civil arm, put on his head a mitre of pa 
per on which devils were painted. 

4. The endless iteration of trifles is beneath the dignity of inquiry 
after truth. Yet they say, ‘straw's show the way the wind blows.’— 
You charge me with suppressing a single word, as follows: ‘The scrap 
of Latin which you have cited in parenthesis, though consisting of 
three, words only, is falsified. Sauntprocul extirpandi, are the words 
of your letter — sunt procul dubio extirpandi,’ are the words of the 
author.’ Even had there been accidentally such an omision, the full 
translation of the absent word, looked you in the face, in the same 
sentence. But your readers must smile, if a more serious feeling be not 
produced, to see the entire sentence in all the papers, the Presbyte- 
rian, the Catholic Herald, & c. &c. How could you permit yourself 
to make such a mistake ? Does it not prove beyond a doubt that you 
feel your difficulties, and are at a loss for a refuge from them P I do 
from my heart pity you. 

5. As to the notorious decree which it seems you will make me 
confess that I did garble, I wish you would produce the whole passage. 
The parts left out did not ‘garble’ the passage; but were all to my 
purpose; and l regretted to lose them. But 1 had cited a passage or 
two, and had not room for more. Why do you not produce and con- 
trast them with what I published, if I have altered the meaning of the 
decree? It was of the translation you spoke in your former let- 
ter. You asked, ‘do you give it as a literal and continuous transla- 
tion?’ I replied, ‘unhesitatingly I do. It is as literal as the sense 
will bear.’ My abstract gave the unbroken meaning of the decree; 
repeated inverted commas marked the transition in the sentence; and 
what I omitted was all, all in my favour; and I cannot think one rea- 
der will believe you, until you adduce the omitted sentences, and 
show that they affect the meaning of my quotations. Such charges 
come with poor grace from you, after the memorable cases of Tertul- 
lian and Wesley. 

6. Y"our attempt at a reply to Bishop Onderdonk’s charge on the 
rule of faith, is not only meager to the last degree, but manifests a 
spirit unworthy of a Christian ora man. Not content with vilifying 
me in the pages of your controversial letters, you have carried your 
assaults into the preface of the review'. The following is a sample; 
after speaking of me in terms of coarse disrespect, you proceed to 
say: ‘But for some months back there has been a considerable under- 
tone of dissatisfaction among the better informed Protestants gene- 
rally, not excepting Presbyterians themselves.’ ‘Even some of the 
Protestant clergy did not hesitate to say that Mr. Breckinridge was 
not ‘the man’ that should have been selected.’ And again, ‘Ilis (the 
Bishop’s) charges has been received as a supplement, if not a substi- 
tute, to the attempts of Mr. Breckinridge.’ In your letter No. IT 


224 


CONTROVERSY. 


you have also said: ‘ a recent charge, ‘the rule of faith,’ which 

without professing to be, is generally regarded as a prop to the weak- 
ness of your arguments, in opposition to my reasoning on the same 
subject.’ 

Now Sir, I have long since frankly owned to you, that in the evan- 
gelical Protestant churches there are many men who are far better 
fitted than myself, by learning, talents, age, piety, and pursuits, to 
meet you in this discussion. But do you reflect that every effort to 
disparage my qualifications, still farther degrades yourself P If a youth, 
who spends half his life in the stage coach, and holds so humble a 
rank amidst the constellation of Protestant ministers, finds it no hard 
task to expose and confound the fashionable, learned, and powerful 
Mr. Hughes, then either the cause of Catholicity is so desperate that 
the best powers of its priesthood cannot sustain it against the feeblest 
essays of Protestants, or else the hero of their cause is only a garru- 
lous Daw, and has been renowned like Goliah, only for want of a 
trial. 

May I here ask of you evidence of so ‘considerable an undertone 
of dissatisfaction among better informed Protestants^, generally, and 
even among Presbyterians, and some of the Protestant clergy ?’ Will 
you favour me with one respectable name, from all these classes ? For 
every such I will return testimonies the most ample and multifarious, 
and bring the highest authority directly falsifying all these unworthy 
insinuations. Besides, can you honestly say that the Bishop’s charge 
is generally regarded as a prop to the weakness of my arguments? 
Have you gathered the public mind so largely ? Does the public ge- 
nerally call my arguments weak ? Have you learned in four weeks, 
(the age of the charge) what the community think of the reason for 
delivering it? Must not every one see with what unpardonable laxi- 
ty you venture to speak ? Your little world of satellites may tell 
you so ! But St. John’s is not our country. I could give you anoth- 
er public sentiment, but I will not imitate your vain boasting. You 
shall hear it for yourself, as it gathers in a running tide from the li- 
mits of the land. In the mean time, be admonished that there is no 
collusion between the Bishop and myself. I have not the honour even 
of a personal acquaintance with him. Nor must you think that the 
nation will hold its breath, and the Protestant press stand still, while 
you swagger through the pompous rounds of arrogant and empty es- 
says on the rule of faith. Again, the Catholic press in this country 
teems with parallel disscussions of the controversy now in progress. 
I have been personally attacked by one of your papers; and the Ca- 
tholic Herald itself is continually publishing some thing intended to 
bear upon our controversy. In a word, a new era has come in our 
country. The American people will promptly see, ‘who the serpent 
is’ (to use your own illustration) ‘that stings the bosom that warms 
it.’ They will henceforth know where to send their children for ed- 
ucation, and when to contribute in generous and abused confidence, 
to build the schools, and convents, and chapels, that are to train the 
children to call their parents heretics; and are arising to re-establish 
a religion which never did, never will, and never can, permit a free 


CONTROVERSY. 


225 


government, or religious toleration. The people are awake or wak- 
ing; and you must change your system, or lose your prize. 

7 . As to Wesley, your defence so sadly labours, that comment 
seems unnecessary. Your explanation has turned states-evidence 
against you. 

If space were not wanting, much powerful matter might be adduc- 
ed in exposure of your treatment of him. Mr. Hughes say, Wesley 
was the public defender of ‘the Protestant Association. 5 Wesley 
says, ‘I have not one line in defence of the association, either in Lon- 
don, or elsewhere. 5 Mr. Hughes says, ‘It never was a Roman Catho- 
lic maxim, (that no faith is to be kept with heretics) except when 
Protestant calumny made it so. 5 Wesley says, ‘the last volume (of 
Labbe’s Book of Councils) contains a particular account of the Coun- 
cil of Constance, one of whose decrees, p. 169, is, 'that heretics ought 
to be put to death, notwithstanding the public faith engaged to them 
in the most solemn manner. (Non obstantibus salvis conductibus 
Imperatoris, Regum, &c.) Whosoever, therefore, would remark upon 
it (his late letter,) to any purpose, must prove three things: (1.) That 
the decree of the Council of Constance publicly made, has been pub- 
licly disclaimed. (2.) That the Pope has not power to pardon sins, 
or to dispense with oaths, vows, and promises. And (3.) that no priest 
has power to pardon sins. 5 These you never can prove; yet until you 
do, you have left an unanswered argument, which will last as long as 
the writings and memory of Wesley. 

7. As to your allusion to our domestic slavery, I fully accord with 
you in the sentiment, that it is a great national crime, and agreat 
national calamity. But then the question for you to answer is this: 
The Pope’s Bull consigned heretics to slavery, in the name of God 
and the Church. Had he the right to do this P If the State sins in 
allowing slavery, may the Roman church encourage and incite to it, 
and be guiltless ? Is such a church infallible ? This is the question. 

8. As to the rule of faith, you say ‘the subject is fairly exhausted, 
by your unexpected declaration, that private interpretation is not the 
Protestant rule of faith. 5 Unexpected ! Strange language at the close 
of a discussion, when in the first column of my first letter, five months 
since, I gave this definition of our rule of faith, viz: 

‘The word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testaments. 5 It is to this definition I have adhered. By your 
own admission, then you have evaded the real Protestantrule of faith, 
and argued against abuses alone ! And strange to tell, you have ne- 
ver to this day given a definition of your rule of faith; and the story 
of the Shepherds, and the rogue’s mark, applies to it as directly this 
day, as it did three months ago. 

At the close of my last letter I introduced many extracts from the 
famous letter of the cardinals to Pope Paul the 3d, showing the ne- 
cessity of a reformation in the Church of Rome. Let us proceed to 
other testimonies. The next I cite is also on Romish authority — be- 
ing the famous letter of three bishops at Bononia, written to the 
Pope (at his request, and containing councel for the establishment of 
the Church,) after the Reformation had begun. This letter covers 
nearly six folio pages, and you will scarcely expect its entire publi- 


2 26 


CONTROVERSY. 


cation. The Bishops says ‘The Lutherans receive anil confess all the 
articles of the Athauasian, Nicene,and Apostles creed.’ ‘And these 
Lutherians refuse to ^admit any doctrine but that alone which hath 
the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles for its authors, and wished that 
all men would be content with those few things that were observed 
in the Apostles times, or immediately after; and would imitate the 
ancient churches, and not think of receiving any traditions, which is 
not as apparent as the light were delivered and instituted by our Lord 
Jesus Christ and his Apostles.’ ‘In the days of the Apostles (to tell 
you the truth, but you must be silent) and for several years after them 
there was no mention made of either pope or cardinal — there were 
none of these large revenues belonging to bishops and priests, no 
sumptuous Temples were raised; there were no monasteries, priors, 
or abbots, much less any of these doctrines, these laws, these consti- 
tutions, nor these sovereignty, which we now exercise over people' and 
nations.’ ‘And here you must awake and exert all your force to 
hinder as much as you can, the Cospel from being read (especially in 
the vulgar tongue,) in all the cities which are under your dominion. 
Let that little of it which they have in the mass serve their turn, nor 
suffer any mortal to read any thing more; for so long as men were 
content with that little, things went to your mind, but grew worse 
and worse from that time, that they commonly read more. This, in 
short, is the book, that has beyond all others, raised those storms and 
tempests, in which we are almost driven to destruction. And really 
whoever shall diligently weigh the Scripture, and then consider all 
the things that are usually done in our churches, will find there is 
great difference betwixt them — and that this doctrine of ours is very 
unlike, and in many things quite repugnant to it.’ This letter is fur- 
nished by Verjerius, and Wolfius, and is translated at large by Dr. 
Claggett of Gray’s Inn. 

Many years before this, the 1st Council of Pisa had decreed a Re- 
formation. The Council of Constance resolved that a reformation 
was necessary, and enumerated nearly twenty items, one on Simony, 
and another on Indulgences, &c. &c. in which it was called for. i he 
Council of Basil, and the 2d Pisan Council also decreed a reforma- 
tion necessary. One of these at least is conceded to be a general 
council, confirmed by a pope. Now if the decrees of a general Coun- 
cil, confirmed by a Pope (as you say) be infallible, then a reformation 
was infallibly necessary; and if such a decree be an article of faith, 
then it was an article of faith that a reformation was necessary. 

To these testimonies I might add almost innumerable authorities 
from the prelates and other writers of the church of Rome. Having 
not room for this, I refer you in fine to the ‘centum gravamina, or 
hundred grievances, of Germany;’ presented in a memorial to the 
Pope, by the diet of Nuremburg in 1523, the very era of the Reform- 
ation. Many years before, the Emperor of Germany joined the 
King of France in calling for Reform, drew up ten grievances, the 8th 
of which was that ‘new indulgences had been granted, and old ones 
revoked and suspended, merely to squeeze out money.’ About this 
time, (as Dupin a Roman Catholic historian says) ‘Pope Alexander 
VI. died Aug. 17th, 1503, by the poison which he had prepared for 


CONTROVERSY. 


22r 


another, loaded with the iniquities of himself, and his natural son 
Caesar Borgia.’ But by 1522, the ten grievances had grown to one 
hundred. !?ome of these were as follows: (see Dupin on this subject:) 

1st. Too many human constitutions which they (the Papacy) dis- 
pensed -with for money. 

2d. Indulgences were become an insupportable yoke, by which 
much money was squeezed out of the Germans, piety destroyed, and 
a door set open to all sorts of crimes — because by that means men 
are freed from punishment, for money; that the sums gathered by 
these indulgences, was consumed by the Popes in maintaining the 
luxury of their relations and family; that the stations and indulgen- 
ces granted to certain churches were not less scandalous, nor did less 
injury to the poor.’ 

10th. The encroachments of the ecclesiastical Judges in lay (mark 
it) lay causes, and their malversations. 

lltli. Exactions of the clergy for sacraments, burials, masses, &c. 
and even for licenses to keep concubines. 

These may serve as specimens of the whole hundred. Observe, 
these were complaints by a Roman Catholic Emperor, Charles V.; 
and a Roman Catholic Diet; and the account is taken from a Roman 
Catholic historian. These testimonies added to those given at the 
close of my last letter, plainly shows that a Reformation was necessa- 
ry. We shall prove still farther hereafter, God willing, that this 
Reformation was needed in faith, as well as morals; in the worship of 
the church, in its head, and in its members. 

Now the history of the church plainly shows, that the Popes and 
Councils did not, and would not, attempt the necessary reform. The 
very assumption of Infallibility, while persisted in, renders all essen- 
tial reform inconsistent and absurd; unnecessary and impossible. 
Hence the corruptions ot the church of Rome, in doctrine, morals, 
and essential worship, have been perpetuated from age to age. Hence 
when you call yourselves unchangeable, you, by confession, and as an 
article of faith, declare against all reformation: and hence, though 
like the cameleon, you take the lights and shades of the objects 
around you, in different countries, still you are in essence the same 
church, unreformed and unreformable, both now and for ever. 
Wherefore the voice of God, speaking in his providence, in your his- 
tory, and his holy word, called upon every lover of truth and holi- 
ness to fly from your communion, saying, come out of her my people, 
that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her 
plagues; for her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remem- 
bered her iniquities. (Rev. xviii. 4, 5.) 

It was in obedience to this divine call that the illustrious, and ever 
memorable ‘Reformation,’ as it is emphatically styled, was at first ef- 
fected. This Reformation was not the introduction of a new r reli- 
gion; but the restoration of the old, as found in the word of God, as 
preached by Christ, and his Apostles; as held by the earliest writers, 
and professed in the creed called the Apostles: that primitive Chris- 
tianity, which was gradually and greatly perverted, and corrupted by 
the rise and establishment of the Papacy, and was more and more 
abused by the church of Rome until the 16th century. 


228 


CONTROVERSY. 


To the question often put to Protestants, ‘Where was jour religion 
before Luther?’ we may answer with a youthful reformer, ‘Where was 
your face before it was washed ?’ or if you prefer this, ‘Where was 
your religion before the Council of Nice?’ and where was it, when 
the Pope of Rome signed the Arian creed, and the chief part of the 
church adopted it?’ Protestantism is a new name for the Catholic- 
ism of antiquity; in contrast with Romanism, or the absurd term Ro- 
man Catholicism. This name was given to the Reformers, who pro- 
tested in 1529 against the unjust decisions of the Diet of Spires. — 
Protestants, properly so called, are Reformers, as their Lord was of 
the corruptions of the Jews; and are heretics as Paul and Peter were, 
in coming out from that ancient but erring people. 

That Protestants are not innovators is virtually confessed by Ro- 
manists, and appears from this, that we hold to the Bible as the only 
rule of faith; whereas they add to it many things, as Traditions, 
Apochrypha, and the interpretations of their Councils. We hold to 
Christ’s headship over the church; they add to it the headship of the 
Pope. We hold to two sacraments; they add live more. We hold to 
the alone merits of Christ’s death, and the one only sacrifice of 
Christ; they add other, and human merits to Christ’s merits, and pro- 
fanely pretend to sacrifice him anew every day in the Mass. We 
hold to confession to God; they add auricula confession. We hold 
that Christ’s church cannot fail; they add that they as the church are 
infallible. In a word, not to mention many such distinctions, their 
system is like a great wen on a man’s head, which has appeared upon 
the church; and though growing out of, and cleaving to the true church, 
is not the true church; but a corrupt and vicious excrescence which 
has encumbered it for ages, and will at last be cut off! 

Protestantism is not a novelty, but became another name for Chris- 
tianity in western Europe, marking an era when religion and learn- 
ing and liberty revived. Romanism is a novelty; the parent of igno- 
rance, corruption of truth, and oppression. There are no less than 
twelve new articles of faith in the creed of Pius IV. manufactured or 
adopted by the Council of Trent in the 16th century of the Christian 
era; and ascending from age to age, you may distinctly note when 
Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Indulgences, &c. &c. were first broach- 
ed and legalized. And while the Protestants recalled primeval Chris- 
tianity, in Europe, there were churches scattered over large regions 
of Asia, and Africa, some of which were never subject to the church 
of Rome, as the Syrian Christians, and others protested against many 
of the false doctrines, and repelled the despotism of the Roman Hie- 
rarchy, as the Armenians in centeral Asia, and, in a greater or less 
degree, the Greek church at large. Add to this, that the Albigenses 
and Waldenses did for ages, and, in the very heart of Europe, like 
the burning bush which Moses saw, survive your fiery persecutions, 
and protest almost in our language, against the papal errors. These 
people may be traced up for many ages before the days of Luther; 
indeed Rhinerius, a Roman Inquisitor, tells us, that some have carri- 
ed them up to the Apostles’ times. 

Roman Catholics profess to be the only true church, and that Pro- 
testants are schismatics. But is it not notorious, that in your church 


CONT.no VERS V. 


229 


there was a great schism in the 11th century, so that, for the space of 
fifty years, there were sometimes two and sometimes three Popes; 
and scenes were acted out by their Holiness the continued occurrence 
of which rent the church and agitated Europe; and the very recital 
is enough to make one shudder. And where was the Greek Church? 
Did it not break oil from you, and protest against many of the very 
errors and corruptions which we reject? And with her did not whole 
nations irreparably forsake the church of Rome? Why did not your 
infallible rule of faith ‘settle these disputes’ which rent your church 
so often and so long; which tore from you so much of Asia and eastern 
Europe on the one hand, and half western Europe by the Reformation 
on the other ? And did not the President of the Council of Trent 
say, that the deprivation and corruption of discipline and morals in 
the church of Rome, was in a great measure the cause and original 
of all those schisms and heresies which then troubled the church ? 

When, therefore, you call for a definition of ‘The Protestant Re- 
ligion,’ (as the time to give it has now arrived,) I reply, it is the Reli- 
gion of the Reformation, in contradistinction from the Roman Catho- 
lic Religion, as it concerns doctrine, and mortality, government, dis- 
cipline, and worship. It is the religion which is exclusively derived 
from and consistent with the Holy Scriptures as the only infallible 
rule of faith and practice; and which protests against the errors and 
corruptions of the Church of Roms. To be more particular, we pro- 
test against the universal supremacy of the Pope; against infallibility, 
purgatory, and indulgences; against transubstantiation, the sacrifice 
of the Mass, and communion in one kind; against the satisfaction and 
merit of creatures, not duly honouring the atonement and righteous- 
ness of our divine Saviour; against penance, auricular confession, ab- 
solution, and extreme unction; against the substitution of external 
service and rites for the work of the Spirit, and the religion of the 
heart; against worshipping the host, images, relics, saints, and angels; 
against prohibiting the Bible to the people, prayers and other wor- 
ship in an unknown tongue, the doctrine of intention, innovations on 
the sacraments as to number and administration, the celibacy of the 
clergy and monasticism; against the manifold superstitions, and im- 
mortalities of the church; against sanctuary for crimes, /exemption of 
subjects from allegiance, and priests from obedience to magistrates; 
against the oppression, persecution, and exclusive salvation of the 
Church of Rome. These are the leading errors and evils against 
which we protest; and I am, by the grace of God, prepared to prove 
that the Protestant Religion (in contradistinction from the religion 
holding, teaching/and practising these things,) is the Religion of Christ. 

Especially do I stand ready to show, that the supremacy of the 
Pope is a usurpation, not founded in Scripture, oppressive to man, and 
injurious to Christ, the only head of the church; that Purgatory is a 
fiction, and ruinous to the souls of men; that Indulgences are *a bun- 
dle of licenses to commit sin,’ and the true moral of Purgatory; that 
transubstantiation is a novelty, an impossibility, and an absurdity; 
that the sacrifice of the Mass is an impiety, and the worship of the 
host idolatrous; and so in order, if you can venture to meet me. And 
as you charge me so pertinaciously with being the assailant, I will now 


230 


CONTROVERSY. 


claim the privilege which you thus force upon me; especially as here- 
tofore you have chosen your own ground, and called on me to follow 
where you lead in the discussion. This is the more reasonable, since 
you profess to belong to the true and only true church; and thus com- 
ing with exclusive salvation, and prescriptive claims, make all other 
forms of religion void; and present the alternative of Catholicism, or 
no religion. I shall therefore with great freedom examine these high 
pretensions. This is the proper and natural order of discussion. In 
this way our reasons for protesting will be fully brought to view; and 
the two systems presented in continued contrast. Yours, &c. &c. 

John Breckinridge. 

P. S. I regret that in attempting to injure Mr. Burtt you should ex- 
pose yourself. ‘But he is of age; and shall speak for himself.’ As 
to the reference, delicacy, and justice, ought to have prevented you 
from speaking as you have of Dr. Wylie’s reason for declining. Did 
not a sense of propriety hinder me, I also would make inferences 
from his dignified, and honourable letter. I do heartly wish that he 
would yet consent to give his decision on the score of referred to- 
pics. J. B. 


CONTROVERSY. No. XXI. 


RULE OF FAITH. 

Philadelphia, June 21, 1833. 
To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 

Itev. Sir , — I have read jour last letter with all attention, and shall 
now proceed to notice such parts of it as require to be answered. It 
begins thus, ‘The celebrated Pascal, himself a Romanist.’ Pascal, 
Rev. Sir, was a Jansenist.and as such, was not a ‘Romanist,’ nor even 
a Catholic. This mistake of jours is common among Protestants, 
even those who ought to be acquainted with the difference. As to 
his Provincial Letters, critics of all parties are agreed that thej 
were, written in a spirit of satirical enmitj towards the Jesuits. — 
Racine sajs thej are nothing but a ‘corned j,’ the characters of which 
were selected from Convents and the Sarbonne. Voltaire, who was 
certainlj no friend to the Jesuits, sajs that the whole work is a mis- 
representation, in consequence of the author’s attributing ‘artfully 
(adroitement) to the whole Society the extravagant opinions, set forth 
by a few of its members in Spain and Flanders.’ (Volt. Siecle de 
Louis XIV.) So much for your first sentence. 

2. If I have charged you with ‘garbling authorities,’ and making 
assertions which are ‘untrue,’ I always supported the charge with 
proofs, which remain unanswered. The first sentence of the 2d pa- 
ragraph is equally unfounded in the truth. It is as follows, ‘your 
Bible, your public Prayers, your Breviary and Mass book, your Cate- 
chism, decrees of Councils, and Bulls of Popes, being in a dead lan- 
guage.’ Now, our Bibles are in English, our public prayers are in 
English, our Catechisms are in English, our Mass book is in English; 
and how can you say that they are in a ‘dead language’ — when any 
one may call at the Catholic bookstore of Mr. Cummiskey of this ci- 
ty, and purchase the very books you mention, all in English? If by 
such assertions your ‘credit suffers, ’ as you say, do not, I pray you, 
throw the blame on me. Catholics have published more editions of 
the Scriptures in English, within the last thirty years, than any other 
denomination of Christians in the United States. This fact proves 
how far you are from being correct, when you assert that our ‘Bibles,’ 
are ‘in a dead language.’ It proves also now far Protestants are de- 
ceived by their blind credulity, and their prejudices, when they say 
that Catholics are not allowed to read the Scriptures. The first edi- 
tion would be still on the booksellers shelves, if there existed such a 
prohibitation — since Protestants never purchase our Bibles. 

3. The Bull of Innocent VIIL In your letter No. 16, you stated, 
that it was in the University of Cambridge; and repeated twice that 
it was issued in 1477. You subsequently admitted your mistake of 
ten years, as to the time; but, nothing daunted, you ‘dared me to de- 
ny it.’ I did deny it. Then you proceed to the ‘show of proof,’ and 
quote the annals of Baronius. Does he say that such a Bull exists ? 


2.32 


CONTROVERSY. 


No. The quotation merely testifies, that Albertus Cataneius was 
commissioned to preach a crusade against the Waldenses; who, as 
you yourself acknowledge, had already ‘taken up arms and murder- 
ed those who had been sent among them — or asyOu express it, ‘slew 
his servant.’ This does not prove the existence of the Bull in the 
University of Cambridge. And after having made the assertion, and 
‘dared me to deny it,’ is it not strange that you should adduce such a 
vague citation, and then say — ‘here is the Bull, Brief, or whatever 
I please to call it.’ Besides, the annals of Baronius, come down only 
to the year 1 1 98; and yet you quote his authority for a fact which 
should have taken place in 1487 ! ! How is this ? 

4. I must give you great credit for the ingenious manner in which 
you get over the persecution of the Catholics of Maryland, by the 
Presbyterians. The persecutors were Puritans. (‘Mark, reader, not 
Presbyterians, Puritans.’) This important distinction is to show, I 
suppose, that the persecutors of Geneva were Calvanists; those of 
Holland, Gomarists; those of New England, Congregationalists; and 
those of Scotland and England, in the time of Charles the first, as 
well as their brethren of Maryland, Puritans. But pray, where were 
the Presbyterians, all this time ? YVhen children disown their parent- 
age, it is a sign they are ashamed of it. 

5. As to the case of John Huss, the authority of Lenfant is no bet- 
ter than that of Mr. Wesley or your own. He was the son of a Cal- 
vinistic minister, and was brought up to be a Calvinistic minister him- 
self. In 1727, he published what he called a history of the Council 
of Constance, held one hundred years before the Reformation. And 
it was such a production, as might have been expected from the 
author of the ‘history of Pope Joan,’ which he published in 1694. — 
But he lived long enough to be ashamed of having treated with grave 
authorship, so absurd and calumnious a fable. These few remarks 
are sufficient Rev. Sir, to show your readers, that your own authority 
would be quite as unimpeachable against the Council of Constance, 
as that of Lenfant. He was a bitter enemy of the Catholic church. 
As to the Safe-Conduct given by the Emperor, I have already, in my 
last letter, established its character, conditions, and circumstances. 
With reference to the unfortunate Huss himself, the Council con- 
demned his doctrine; and degraded him as an obstinate heretic, from 
his rank of Priesthood. But having done this, it declared that its 
powers as a spiritual tribunal extended no farther. The civil laws of 
the age and of the city of Constance did the rest. I have the acts of 
that Council now before me, and I defy enmity itself to make any 
thing more out of them. As to the ‘devils painted on his paper mitre,’ 
it is one of those little tales by which Protestant children’are frighten- 
ed into hatred against Catholics; — the germ of prejudice is planted 
in their minds; — so that when they have grown up, they are the un- 
conscious victims of the ‘radical delusion’ of Protestantism, and ima- 
gine that their religious opinions, no matter what, are taken from the 
pure word of God — the Bible alone. 

6. In paragraph 4th of your letter,you quote the words of Bellar- 
mine ‘sunt procul dubio extirpandi’ to show that they were not ‘falsi- 
fied,’ as I had stated. But you know that we both write from the 


CONTROVERSY. 


23 i 

corrected proof of each others letters; which is furnished several 
days before the paper is regularly issued. You know further that in 
the proof the passage was as I stated — and candor should have in- 
duced you to to say that you had corrected the ‘falsification’ before 
the paper went, finally, to press — which correction escaped my no- 
tice. You knew that such disingenuousness must come to light after 
one short week — and that you ought not to have claimed -the advan- 
tages of a mistake, into which your own false citation of the passage 
had betrayed your opponent, although you had afterwards correct- 
ed it. 

7. In your paragraph No. 4, you again admit that you had garbled 
the passage from the 4th Council of Lateran, which, however, you 
had unhesitatingly pronounced to be ‘continuous.’ Of course there 
is no longer any issue between us, on that subject. As to what you 
call Hhe memorable case of Tertullian and Wesley,’ I have already 
disposed of them by proving all I had asserted. 

9. Your 6th paragraph is a vindication forsooth of Bishop Onder- 
donk’s Charge on the Rule of Faith, and a volley of personality dis- 
charged at myself. The former, it seems tome, was in you, a work 
of supererogation; and the latter is a species of literary warfare in 
which I am determined not to mingle. 1 began this controversy to 
reason, but not to quarrel, with you. And whether you are pleased to 
represent me as ‘the fashionable, learned, and powerful Mr. Hughes,’ 
or as ‘a garrulous daw,’ is a matter of trival importance to the ques- 
tion, to the public, and myself. But I would simply remark, that I 
have not attempted to depreciate your talents or qualifications. In 
fact, the way the world goes, talents and qualifications are quite un- 
necessary for the man who undertakes to combat the Catholic reli- 
gion. The task requires only a bold and irresponsible pen. Call it 
‘Popery,’ ‘Romanism,’ ‘Superstition,’ ‘Idolatry,’ ‘Mummery,’ &c. Call 
the clergy of the church, from the Cardinal down to the Deacon, a 
consolidated mass of spiritual knaves, who understand their parts so 
well, that cholera or pestilence may range the w r orld, and not find one 
of them quitting his post, except it be to sink in the grave: — in a word, 
men who never had a good motive, but are always planning dark 
schemes against the welfare of the human race, for tne sole glory 
and aggrandizement of ‘Anti-christ’ — ‘even their lord God, the Pope.’ 
Call the Catholic laity, ‘ignorant,’ ‘blind-led,’ ‘priest-ridden’ debased 
creatures, who dare not read the Bible, nor even think, except as the 
Pope gives them permission; — do all this, and it will be received by 
the millions of Protestants as a highly satisfactory and rational refu- 
tation of Catholic doctrine. Now it does not require for all this, any 
rare combination of talents. And as to yours, Rev. Sir, I have so 
high an opinion of them, that I only regret their not being employed 
in a better cause. If you only knew the Catholic religion as it is, I 
am sure you would not have assailed it as you have done. But until 
God make another Revelation, he will not endow either men or an- 
gels with talents equal to the task which you have rashly undertaken. 
This is the true secret of that ‘dissatisfaction among better informed 
Protestants,’ in reference to the actual issue of the present contro- 


CONTROVERSY. 


versy; and whilst they exaggerate my qualifications, and disparage 
yours, they are guilty of injustice to us both. 

As to the ‘considerable undertone of dissatisfaction,’ I had reason 
to believe in its existence, but as you seem to be sceptical on the sub- 
ject, let me suppose that I was mistaken, and that Protestants gene- 
rally are perfectly satisfied with the manner in which you have vin- 
dicated their rule of faith. But this supposition also, has it difficul- 
ties. For the first place the ‘charge’ to which you refer was in favour 
of the Protestant rule, and opposed to the Catholic principle — and 
this, pendente lite ! Neither do you, and the ‘charge,’ agree in your 
mode of vindication. You deny that private interpretation ‘is the 
Protestant rule of faith;’ — the ‘charge’ admits this, if I understand 
it — where it says that the Scriptures are to be ‘interpreted as other 
ancient books’ — in the exercise, however, a discreet judgment. The 
charge teaches that according to the Protestant rule ‘moral certainty, 
but not infallible certainty, can be attained,’ whereas you agreed that 
an ‘infallible rule has been appointed by Christ himself,’ and contend- 
ed that this is no other than the Protestant rule, from which it would 
follow that those who are guided by that rule, should have an ‘infalli- 
ble certainty,’ of being right; — a conclusion which clashes with that 
of the ‘charge!’ Again, the Methodist paper in New York called 
‘Zion’s Advocate,’ by way of letting its readers judge for themselves, 
as Protestants pride themselves in doing, has suppressed all my let- 
ters and published all yours! Judge for themselves, indeed ! In 
contrast with this, look at the Catholic paper published it St. Louis 
called the ‘Shepherd of the Valley,’ which is so small that one of our 
letters seems to eat it up, and yet contrives to publish your letter en- 
tire, verbatim et literatim ; whilst it economises space by the curtail- 
ment of mine! Again still, why is it that two Protestant papers in 
this city suspended the publication of the controversy after having 
both announced that they would furnish regular abstracts of the argu- 
ments on both sides? — And alter having done so to the number of 
four or five letters ? Why is it that every Catholic paper in the coun- 
try except one (which publishes the discussion in New York) spreads 
out to its readers the whole controversy; your writings as well as 
mine? What does all this look like if there is no dissatisfaction 
among Protestants generally? Some papers publish all your letters 
and none of mine-—and others, rather than be guilty of such unequal 
justice, cutting their own promises short, by suspending the publica- 
tion of both ! But this is not all : many of them have represented 
my arguments against the radical delusion of Protestantism, as argu- 
ments against the Bible! Do not these proceedings, this injustice. 
Inis misrepresentation and calumny argue the evidence of dissatis- 
faction ? 

In your paragraph 7, you say that Mr. Wesley never wrote a line 
in defence of the Protestant Association in London or elsewhere. In 
answer to this I have to say the ‘association’ itself was of a different 
•opinion. Wesley’s letter from which 1 quoted was dated, January 
•12,1780. And on the 17th of February following, the thanks of the 
‘Association’ were voted to him for his exertions in the cause. But 
for further particulars I refer you to my letter to a Wesleyan Metho- 


CONTROVERSY. 


335 


cHst in this paper as I do not wish to answer the same arguments or 
objections coming from two opponents. 

10. The rest of ^our letter, down to your definition of the Pro- 
testant religion, which I shall examine presently, is a description of 
abuses, and of the low state of public moral at, and previous to the 
pretended ‘Reformation.’ That there were abuses, and that there 
still may be abuses, is what no man of sense and education will deny. 
But it will be perceived, that Catholics themselves were crying out 
for the correction of these abuses. They demanded a reformation — 
but they did not conceive that in order to effect it, it would be neces- 
sary to deny the existence of free will in man, as a moral agent, with 
Luther — they did not conceive it necessary to make God the author of 
sin, and the slave of his foreknowledge, with Calvin; they did not 
conceive it necessary to deny the Divinity of Christ, and destroy the 
belief of redemption through the merits of his blood, with Socinus: 
-—and so of the other ‘Reformers.’ This vras not the kind of Refor- 
mation they anticipated. They desired that men would reform their 
lives, according to the religion of Jesus Christ; — but the Protestant 
Reformers changed the religion of Christ, and yet testified, as I shall 
prove in its place, from their own writings, that their followers became 
less moral and more depraved than they had been before the change. 
As for your authorities on those abuses, be pleased to let me know 
where 1 shall find them. For example, the reference to the ‘letter of 
the three Bishops at Bononia,’i's too vague. Again the testimony of 
*Dr. Clagget of Gray’s Inn,’ is no better than yours or that of Mr. 
M‘Gavin. He, a Protestant, quotes from Wolfius, another Protest- 
ant; and both together with Lefant, Robert llall, and John Wesley 
may be placed in the same rank of testimony with archbishop ‘Usher.’ 

Altogether, you will be pleased to quote the original authorities, 
and 1 will do the same, as I have done from the commencement. — 
Such authorities as those just referred to, are not a whit better than 
your own assertion. 

Before we pass to another topic it mav be proper forme to take a 
retrospective view of the question whicli has been under discussion, 
viz: the rule of faith. We started on the principle, that the Son of 
God having made a revelation of divine truths, and having required 
the belief of them as one of the conditions of our salvation, appoint- 
ed at the same time, an ‘infallible’ means to arrive at the knowledge 
of what those divine truths are. To accomplish this, the Catholic 
church has preserved from the days of the Apostles until this hour, 
the same uniform principle of religious guidance. For the proof that 
the Catholic church in holding to this principle, has followed the rule 
appointed by the Divine Author of Christianity, I refer the candid 
reader to the evidences adduced in my letters No. 5, 7, and 9 — from 
Scripture, history, Apostolical and primative usage in the Christian 
church, and from the very necessities of the case. Let him also see 
whether in any or all the letters of my opponent, these evidences, 
arguments and authorities have been refuted. 

On the other hand Protestants have adopted from their origin in 
the 16th century, as the ‘infallible’ means of arriving at the know- 
ledge of those divine truths, which Christ revealed, the sacred writ- 


236 


CONTOOVEtlSY. 


ings, exclusively, of the Old and New Testament, as each under- 
stands them for himself. This principle secures to each minister the 
right to propogate his own conceits, as divine truths contained in the 
Bible — and consequently has given rise to heresy of every descrip- 
tion, until it has thrown Protestant Christianity into a scene of ton- 
fusion, contradiction, inconsistency, doubt, indifference and infidelity, 
in which no man can say who is right, or who is wrong. Is this prin- 
ciple of religious guidance, ‘infallible?’ And if not, who will say that 
it was established by Christ? 

In my first letter I laid down certain arguments to prove that this 
principle is neither infallible nor competent to the end for which a 
rule of faith was instituted by the Divine Redeemer. These argu- 
ments it will be admitted by the candid reader, have not to this day 
been refuted. The first was, that the Bible was not complete until 
about the second century — and therefore, could not be the rule of 
faith previous to its completion. The 2d was, that the Bible no where 
speaks of itself as the exclusive rule of faith — and that, therefore, 
Protestants have no divine authority for this assumption. The 3d 
was, that the Bible ‘alone,’ is the Bible on ‘the shelf’ — in which sense 
it is absurd to speak of it, as a rule of faith. Now the public will be 
surprised to perceive that you have given up the Protestant rule of 
faith, in your last letter, except in this identical and absurd sense of 
the Bible on, ‘the shelf.’ In your epistle No. 18, you frankly gave up 
‘private interpretation,’ as not being ‘the Protestant rule of faith.’ In 
your last you tell me, that in arguing against ‘private interpretation,’ 
I have argued ‘not against the real Protestant rule of faith, but 
against its abuses alone!’ You affect to be surprised that I was not 
aware of this sooner. But I believe, Rev. Sir, that you are the first 
Protestant writer that has recognised ‘private interpretation’ as an 
‘abuse.’ The real rule of Protestants is, you tell us, ‘The word of 
God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.’ 
This is the real rule, but if men try to understand these Scriptures,’ 
it must be by ‘private interpretation,’ and this, you tell us, is the 
‘abuse,’ against which you say I have been arguing. Now you will 
not be offended, I trust, at learning that so far as this admissison 
goes, you are a Catholic. The Church has always held your decla- 
ration on this point — and she has ever taught, that ‘private interpre- 
tation,’ as it is among Protestants, is an ‘abuse.’ 

My 4th argument was the Bible alone cannot attest either its au- 
thenticity, inspiration, or meaning — which is proved by the contra- 
dictions which Protestants profess to derive from it; — and therefore 
is not the only rule of faith. 

The 5th was, that during the first four hundred years of Christian- 
ity the Bible was not, and could not be, the only rule of faith — and 
the proof is, that during that interval the Canon of Scripture was 
not universally settled in the Church; and even if it had been, copies 
of the sacred book could not be multiplied for the general wants. 

The 6th was, that since the beginning of the world, no controversy 
was ever decided by the Bible alone. 7th. That the Bible perverted 
by private interpretation,’ in other words, the Protestant rule of faith 
— ha3 given rise to all the heresies that ever did, or do exist. 8th 


CONTROVERSY. 


237 


That in consequence of its 'abuse,’ by private interpretation, it makes 
for the Socinian, as well a§ for the Calvinist. 9th. That by the same 
‘abuse,’ it compels a man who is an orthodox Protestant to become 
heterodox, if he thinks that he was wrong, and wishes to be right.— 
10th. That it reduces orthodoxy and heterodoxy to the same quag- 
mire of uncertainty, in which neither can find any thing more solid, 
as a foundation, than mere private opinion. 

Thus it is, that Protestants by adopting a false principle of reli- 
gious guidance, have unhinged Christianity, and left infidelity to reap 
the fruits of their rashness. Now, Rev. Sir, I contend that these 
plain, common sense arguments against the Protestant rule of faith, 
have not been refuted in all you have written. They have, indeed, 
been met with cavil and objection; but if cavil and objection are to 
be received as proof, then the Atheist may triumph. We all admit. 
Catholics and Protestants, the Bible to be the inspired word of God, 
but at the commencement of the controversy I assailed ‘private in- 
terpretation,’ as the ‘radical delusion of Protestantism,’ and I am 
happy to perceive that in your last letter you also denounce it as 
‘abuse.’ Here then we may take leave of the rule of faith and pro- 
ceed to the second topic of discussion, which professes to be this : 

‘Is the Protestant Religion the Religion of Christ?’ 

To this question I answer with a full sense of my responsibility 
both to God and my fellow men, that it is not. And I am persuaded 
that all men who are candid, and competent to give due considera- 
tion to the reasons I shall adduce, will arrive at the same conclu- 
sion. 

1 . The Protestant religion is only three hundred years old; — where- 
as ‘the religion of Christ’ is eightheen hundred years — therefore they 
are not the same. In proof of the premises of this argument, I 
challenge you to name on the face of the globe, or in the history of 
the whole human race, any society of Christians, agreeing in doc- 
trines with the authors of the pretended Reformation or with any 
sect that has grown out of it. Consequently either the religion of 
Christ was not professed by any society of Christians, until the days 
of Luther;— or else, the Protestant religion is not the religion of 
Christ. This is a dilemma from which escape is impossible. Is it 
not thep, Rev. Sir, strange to hear you answering the question, ‘where 
was your religion before Luther?’ by asking another, ‘where was your 
face before it was washed ?’ 

2. Whenever God communicated any revelation or new doctrine 
to mankind, he invariably gave to the organ of that new doctrine, a 
divine commission to speak in his name; and the power of miracles 
to prove that God had so commissioned him to speak. This was the 
case with Moses; this was the case with Jesus Christ himself, during 
his life, and with his apostles, after his ascension into heaven. But 
the Protestant religion was a new religion, since no society of Chris- 
tians had professed its doctrines previous to Luther, and yet its found- 
ers had no divine commission, and no power of working miracles to 
show that God had sent them, for this new work: — Therefore the 
Protestant religion is not the religion of Christ. 


238 


CONTROVERSY. 


3-. The religion of Christ consists of doctrines which have been 
revealed, taught, and believed as positive truths; whereas the Protes- 
tant religion consists of doctrines which are variable, unsettled, and 
which are submitted and believed not as positive truths, but as mere 
opinions; therefore the Protestant religion is not the religion of Christ. 

4. The Apostles of Christianity, besides their power of working 
miracles in proof of their having been sent, preached the same di- 
vine faith every where, without the least variation or disagreement; 
whereas the Apostles of the Protestant religion, Luther, Zuinglius, 
Henry VIII., Socinus, Calvin, &c., not only disagreed in their doc- 
trines, but denounced each other in the most solemn manner, as Her- 
etics and deceivers of souls. Therefore the Protestant religion is not 
the religion of Christ; even according to the testimony of its found- 
ers. 

Here, Rev’d Sir, are four brief and distinct arguments, which I 
defy all the powers of human ingenuity to refute: — not because they 
are of my constructions, but because they are true, in all their parts. 
Nothing can overturn truth. You may excite the passions of men to 
hate it, you may succeed to envelope it in the mists of prejudice, but 
still it is truth, and because it is truth, it cannot be attered or de- 
stroyed, Permit me then to invite your attention to these four argu- 
ments, examine them joint by joint, and if they are true, then admit 
for the sake of truth, that ‘the Protestant religion is not the religion 
of Christ.’ 

Your definition of the Protestant religion, might have been much 
shorter and equally to the purpose. You might have said, at once, 
and in a few words, ‘The Protestant religion is not the Catholic reli- 
gion.” Now this is no definition. You tell me what the Protestant 
religion is not; whereas I require to know what it is. In order to a 
definition, you must describe a thing by its own properties, its own 
distinctive characteristics. ‘The Protestant religion, you say, is the 
religion of the Reformation.’ This is no definition; until you have 
fixed the positive meaning of the word Reformation. That word has 
a great variety of meanings, among Protestants; it gave birth to a nu- 
merous offspring of religions, and I should be glad to know whether 
you intend to bear a shield broad enough to cover and protect them all. 
In my arguments above, I disregarded all definition of the Protestant 
religion; because those arguments are equally strong, no matter what 
it is. But a definition is absolutely necessary, and as yours is the 
business of defence, it is your duty to furnish it. You have attempt- 
ed another definition, and told us that the Protestant religion ‘is the 
religion which is exclusively derived from and consistent with the 
holy scriptures as the only infallible rule of faith and practice. This, 
Rev’d Sir, is precisely the definition, which the Unitarians, Sweden- 
borgians, and Universalists, give of their religion. Do you purpose 
then, to prove that their religion, is the religion of Christ! But as I 
do not wish to misrepresent the Protestant religion, I desire that you 
tell me whether these denominations are included in it, or not; they 
are certainly included in your definition. 


CONTROVERSY. 


23 * 


It I were allowed to define the Protestant religion, I should call it 
Hhe religion of free- thinking about the meaning of the Bible. The 
religion in which every man has a right to judge for himself; and to 
make the sacred text of Scripture speak in accordance with his judg- 
ment. The religion, in which there is neither seism, nor heresy, neith- 
er faith nor heterodoxy, because being a religion of individual specu- 
lation, and private opinion, these things are necessarily rendered im- 
possible. I should say, that it is the religion which cannot recover, 
from the moral shock of its own first principles. The religion which 
if considered in the aggregate of its sects, allows its ministers to 
teach the. people that the Bible contradicts itself ten times in one 
page. The religion, in fine, which occupies the intermediate space, 
between ancient Christianity, and modern Deism, combining certain 
elements of both; and cherishing enmity towards both, (especially 
the former,) and unable to defend itself against either.’ 

Such is, in my opinion, the true definition of the Protestant reli- 
gion. Such are its own inherent properties and characteristics. But 
still as you have undertaken to prove that it is the ‘religion of Christ,’ 
you have a right to define it as you please, provided you will only 
tell me what it is, instead of amplifying its negative qualities, by tel- 
ling me what is not. 

Before I conclude this letter, I must call your attention and that of 
our readers, to a passage of your last epistle which if I understand 
it, proves that the leaven of intolerance is still working in the bosom 
of Presbyterianism. It is not, indeed, the declaration of the Gene- 
ral xVssembly; and therefore I am inclined to impute it rather to the 
irritation of your pen. than to the body of Calvinists at large, among 
whom, I have no doubt there are many who will disapprove of its spi- 
rit and bearing as much as I do. It runs as follows: 

‘In a word, a new era has come in our country. The American 
people will promptly see, ‘who the serpent is, (to use your own illus- 
tration,) that stings the bosom which warms it.’ They will hence- 
forth know where to send their children for education, and when to 
contribute in generous and abused confidence, to build the Schools, 
and Convents, and Chapels, that are to train the children to call their 
parents heretics; and are arising to re-establish a religion which ne- 
ver did, never will, and never can, permit a free government or reli- 
gious toleration. The people are awake or awaking; and you must 
change your system or lose your prize.’ 

This language. Rev. Sir, will be read not indeed, with astonishment, 
(considering its source) but with indignation by every true hearted 
American citizen. Is it then a crime in the ‘American people,’ that 
they do not exclude Catholics from the privileges which the consti- 
tution secures to all? Is the demon of sectarian hatred, ill-will 
among men, and intolerance to be again invoked; — are the penal laws 
to be again enacted; — the fires of persecution to be again lighted up, 
as the nostrus of political salvation for these United States; merely 
because Mr. Breckinridge is, or affects to be, frightened at the pro- 
gress of Catholicity ? What are the crimes imputed to Catholics ? 
Why, that they establish houses of ‘education,’ and that Protestants 
have been generous enough to contribute to their erection. Now if 
29 


340 


OONTROYBfISY. 


they found such institutions, it is a sign that they are not those rota- 
ries of ignorance, which you yourself have elsewhere represented 
them. And if Protestants have ‘contributed,’ to aid them in this 
work (of which you furnish no evidence) it is a sign that these Pro- 
testants approved of the undertaking, and exercised the privilege of 
dominion over their own property, without consulting their ministers. 
Farther, Catholic literary Institutions have never cost the public one 
cent for their maintenance, whereas those under the management of 
Protestant professors, besides their primative endowment, have ob- 
tained vast sums of the public money. No to go out of our own 
State, look at the Dickson ^Presbyterian College of Carlisle, which 
never flourished except when it was allowed to feed at the public 
treasury of the State; and after having received a number of legisla- 
tive grants, as if it were an alms house instead of a College, it has 
finally transferred itself to the Methodists, who, I trust will make a 
better use of it. 

The Catholic colleges, and houses of education, never beg at the 
doors of government for any such aid. They hold that the institu- 
tion which, in this country, is not able to support itself by its own 
intrinsic merit, ought not to exist. They are patronised by Protest- 
ants and I regret that you should have betrayed your mortification at 
this circumstance. Protestants begin to understand their own interest 
in this matter. They wish to place their sons in those institutions 
where there are found good discipline, conscientious tutors, vi- 
gilant attention to health and morals, competent and zealous 
professors, and all the means of sound, radical, and thorough 
education; — and if, in their judgment, all these advantages are found 
in Catholic colleges and seminaries, why should you blame them for 
not sending their children to Princeton and Carlisle P As for the 
charge of teaching them to call their parents ‘Heretics,’ it is a calum- 
ny too silly to deserve refutation. Their own interest would forbid 
them, even if they were inclined. But I appeal to all the Protestant 
parents that ever patronised those institutions, to say whether their 
children did not return to them as obedient, as respectful, as affection- 
ate as before they went; and with a more delicate and conscientous 
apprehension of their filial, social, and moral duties. Why then should 
you blame them for their preference ? 


•Grants by Legislature to Dickinson College: 

1786, April 7, 400/. and 10,000 acres of land, exchanged after- 
wards for $6000, say, . 

1788, Oct. 4, a lot of ground in the borough of Carlisle. 

1791, Sept 30, 1500/. say - 

1795, April 11, $5000 

1806, Feb. 24, $8400 on mortgage free of interest for five years; but 
1819, the trustees discharged from the payment, 

1921, Feb. 20, $2000 annually for five years, . . „ 

1826, Feb. 13, $3000 annually for seven years, 


$7335 00 

4000 00 
5000 00 

8400 00 
10,000 00 
21,000 00 


$55,735 00 

Making in all fifty-five thousand seven hundred aHd thirty-five dollars of the 
public money given to the Presbyterian Dickson College of Carlisle ! 


CONTROVERSY. 


841 


As to Catholics being a ‘serpent warmed in the bosom of the Ame- 
rican people,’ it is language, which, as I said before, no true son of 
the Constitution’will ^understand, except to excreate the’spirit which 
it seems to breathe. The ‘American people,’ as a people, knows no 
distinction of creeds; and yet you speak as if the Government were 
already chained to the car of the General Assembly ! The Catho- 
lics, as citizens, are part and portion of that ‘people,’ being as peacea- 
ble in their demeanor, as upright in their dealings, as industrious in 
their avocations, and as ardent in their attachment to civil and reli- 
gious liberty, as any other denomination. When the tree of Ameri- 
can liberty was planted, was it not watered with Catholic blood ?-— 
When the instrument of American Independence was drawn up, 
was it not signed with Catholic ink ? When the provinces on our 
borders were to be conciliated, was not the commission intrusted to 
a Catholic Senator, and a Catholic Priest; afterwards Archbishop 
Carrol ? When the battle was won, was not the glory of the victory 
divided with the Catholic soldiers, of a Catholic king ? And yet, you 
speaks of Catholics as if they live and breathe the free air, by the 
criminal connivance of ‘the American people.’ But you, forsooth, 
are about to rouse that ‘people,’ from its apathy to teach them, that 
in allowing the Catholics to share the benefits of the constitution— 
for I know of no other privilege that they enjoy — they are ‘cherish- 
ing a serpent that will sting the bosom wliich warms it. 

But this, you say, was my ‘own illustration,’ applied to Presbyteri- 
ans. Yes, Rev’d. Sir, but applied on the faith of history; to Puri- 
tans, who, when they were persecuted in Virginia, fled to the Catho- 
lic Colony of Maryland, and in return for the hospitality they re- ' 
ceived, turned round at the first opportunity, and persecuted those 
who had exercised it towards them. Read M‘Mahon’s History of 
Maryland. This was the case, which was illustrated by the simile 
of the serpent; and if history testifies that Catholics have at any 
time, ever been guilty of such base ingratitude, I have no objection 
that you should borrow and apply ‘my illustration.’ Your applica- 
tion of it to Catholics, as distinguished from ‘the American people,’ 
borders too much on the ludicrous, and shows that you were straiten- 
ed formatter, wherewithal to excite the prejudice againt Catholics, 
when you quit the testimony of past events, and appeal to the visions 
of futurity. But I fear that your fallibility as an historian, will have 
impared your credit as a prophet. — Since it is much easier to be ac- 
quainted with what has taken place in the world, than to tread with 
prophetic accuracy the labyrinth of future contingencies. 

‘Chi oflende, non pardona,’ says the proverb. And it would be 
one happy result of this controversy, if you could only turn against 
the Catholics that current of jealous apprehension, which for some 
time past has been setting in, against the Presbyterians themselves in 
reference to ther ambitious projects and political aspirations. It 
would be well, if the ‘American people,’ could be induced to cast 
their eyes in another direction. But, Rev. Sir, I shall not be the ac- 
cuser of Presbyterians, as to any ulterior political designs. I have 
marked their movements; their professions of zeal for the glory of 
God; their plans for accomplisfiing it; their schemes of sectarian 


242 


CQfflWQVBftSV 


quackery, by which it would appear that they are accountable for the 
religious, and moral well-being not only of the ‘American people,’ but 
of the whole human race; — their wish to have ‘Christian parties,’ in 
politics, and Christian magistrates, whose duty it is, says their Stand- 
ard to be ‘nursing fathers of the Church;’ — their enumeration of 
Presbyterian votes on the day of election; their attempts to have the 
mail stopped on Sunday — in a word, their gigantic schemes for the 
reformation of the world, according to their ideas of perfection; — all 
conspire to produce the apprehension, not that will seize the civil 
government (the American people will take care of that) but that in 
their zeal for the sanctification of others, they may neglect the sanc- 
tification of themselves. This is all the evil that I apprehend from 
the intermeddling and pragmatic spirit, which seems to animate the 
zealous members of Presbyterianism, from the Moderator in General 
Assembly, down to those well meaning children who cherish large 
notions about curing the moral distempers of a whole neighborhood, 
by thrusting tracts into every house, whether the family desires them 
or not. But as to the ‘American people,’ they have nothing to dread 
on either side, — they will take care of the State, if clergymen will 
only take care of the Church — the denomination, however that first 
attempts to bring about a union of these two, makes preparations for 
tragic nuptials. 

In your postscriptjyou charge me with attempting to injur the Rev. 
Mr. Burtt. I really cannot suffer such a charge to pass unnoticed. — 
How does the case stand? You stated that you had been informed, 
that Bishop Kenrick had warned the people against reading this con- 
troversy. You subsequently apologized to him; but transferred the 
charge to some other of the Catholic clergy in this city. The charge 
itself was a ‘gratuitous falsehood,’ because there was not the shadow 
of foundation for it. This was manifest, from the ludicrous texture 
of that ludicrous composition, signed John Burtt — and more so still, 
from the letter of the Rev. Mr. Fitton, of the ‘Connecticut Valley,’ 
who proves it a falsehood, by showing that he was in Washington ci- 
ty, on the very day on which he is charged with having issued the 
‘prohibition.’ in St. John’s church, Philadelphia. It was a ‘calumny,’ 
because it insinuated dishonesty of purpose on the part of the Catho- 
lic clergy, in forbidding the people to behold the light of truth which 
your pen was shedding, around the topic of controversy. This was 
the state of the case independent of any man’s authorship. And 
when I held Rev. John Burtt as accountable for it; youshold remem- 
ber that I did so, on your own specific testimony, for in your last let- 
ter but one you stated positively, that Mr. Burtt was ‘the original, and 
responsible informant’ If that Gentleman is injured, therefore, let 
him charge the injury upon you, or upon himself, or on both together; 
but not upon Yours, &c. 

Jno. Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY No. XXII. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF 

CHRIST? 

Philadelphia , June 27, 1833. 

To the Rev. John Hughes, 

Sir, — The^great question now before us, is this: Is the Protestant 
religion the religion of Christ ? The order of debate as agreed on be- 
tween us, entitles me to introduce this topic. Hence you have called 
on me for a definition of ‘the Protestant religion,’ and pledge your- 
self to respect it. The terms of the question make it general — not 
Presbyterian, but Protestant; they also refer us to a fact out of which 
the name grew, viz: that a protest had been entered: and they point 
us to the church and system against which we protest. The very first 
step, therefore in the order of discussion, is to show against what we 
protest. After this, or if you please, in contrast with it, it will be 
proper to examine that which the Protestants propose, as true and 
good, in opposition to the errors and evils of the church of Rome. I 
have on this plan given you a definition of the Protestant religion. It 
is a positive definition, viz: a religion exclusively derived from, and 
consistent with the Holy Scriptures, as the only infallible rule of 
faith and practice — and I referred for illustration of it to the earliest 
creed and the earliest Christian writers, as well as those who have 
been emphatically called The Reformers of the 1 6th century. It is 
also negative in contradistinction from the Roman Catholic religion 
as to doctrine, morality, government, discipline and worship, and as 
protesting against the errors and coruptions of the church of Rome. 
If I am tnen to show why I protest, I must exhibit what I protest 
against; else the correlative term of Protestant, has no meaning,— 
And if, as you say, I am the original assailant, why do you tell me 
that mine ‘is the business of defence?’ And if, of two leading ques- 
tions, (viz: ‘The rule of faith,’ and this) the first is given to you, and 
the last to me, shall I be required to defend under the first, and also 
under the last ? Are you then afraid to follow me in the steps of my 
discussion, while I compare our respective religions with each other, 
and with the religion of Christ ? If so, you concede the weakness 
of your cause. If not, then follow me. 

I have already proved (in my letters Nos. 18, and 20,) on the au- 
thority of Roman Catholic writers, and Roman Catholic councils, 
that a Reformation was necessary — and that it was an article of faith 
that a Reformation was necessary — not only in the days of Luther, 
but for ages before: that a Reformation was needed, in the head and in 
the members: that the name of Christ had been forgotten by the na- 
tions, and even by the clergy; that Rome herself, the avowed mother 
and mistress of churches, was the very place where Christ’s religion 
was scandalized and his worship corrupted: that simony and sacri- 


244 


CONTIIOVRRSY: 


lege with nuns, clerical debauchery, ‘a world of superstitions,’ and 
the most shocking corruptions abounded and reigned in the church; 
and in a word, that an ignorant and corrupt priesthood were bringing 
ruin on the church. Pope Adrian the 6th said, ‘the whole world 
groaned after a reformation:’ the Suffragan Bishop of Saltsburgh (onus 
ecclesire) declared ‘it is vehemently to be presumed, and cautiously 
to be feared, that the ruin of the Latin (Roman) Church, as to its ec- 
clesiastical dignity, is near;’ and the 2d Pisan council (sess. 3d apud. 
Richerium, b. 4. pt. 1st) decreed ‘that the universal Church needed 
reformation in faith and manners, in the head and members.’ 

And yet it has also been proved that the Church of Rome would 
not be reformed; that it was not reformed; and that on the ground 
of its pretended infallibility, it never could be reformed. Such con- 
fessedly was the deplorable condition of the Church of Rome when 
‘the Reformation’ began, and its authors received the name of Pro- 
testants. Treading in their footsteps, we protest against her corrup- 
tion of the religion of Christ. 

1. She has corrupted this religion at the fountain-head, by making 
another Bible, adding to it ‘the Apochryphal Books,’ which I have al- 
ready proved were rejected for many centuries by the Christian 
church, which contain fables, lies, false doctrines, and contradictions; 
and in which alone are found some of those very errors that are held 
by the church of Rome. She has also given to corrupt and unwritten 
traditions the same authority with God’s own word; and thus at her 
will brought from this forge any doctrine that the times and ends cal- 
led for. From these topics, while on the rule of faith, you uniform- 
ly shrunk, thus confessing that they could not be defended. 

2. The Supremacy of the Pope, is a radical error in the church of 
Rome, is a wicked and anti-christian usurpation, which by a lawless 
monarchy oppresses men, and rebels against God. 

In the famous creed of Pius IV. which every Roman Catholic is 
bound without qualification, to believe, is this oath : ‘I promise 
and swear true obedience to the Roman Bishop; the successor of St 
Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ.’ Boni- 
face VIII. in a decree extant in the canon-law, pronounces it ‘neces- 
sary to salvation for every human being to be subject to the Roman 
Pontiff'.’ Bellarmine says, (Chap. 17. b. 2.) ‘All the names, which in 
Scripture are applied to Christ, proving him to be above the church, 
are in like manner applied to the Pope.’ Is not this profane? The 
Pope is also styled ‘Head of the church’ — ‘Lord of lords,’ Father of 
fathers’ — ‘our Lord God the Pope,’ and the like. As the vicar of 
Christ, the Pope is blasphemously set up to take his place on earth. 

Thus he is the Prophet, Priest, and King, of the church on earth. 

He is a Prophet; for no Council is valid, unless called and approved 
by him; and from this infallible source we are to learn, (1.) What is 
the word of God and what not; and (2.) without daring to think for 
ourselves, we are to learn what it means, and what not. As a Priest, 
he professes to offer up continually the true Christ in the Mass as a 
sacrifice to God: and as a king, he is a monarch, is Head of the 
church and the state, is King of kings; has both swords, and can 
make laws to bind the consciences of men, can depose kings, dissolve 


CONTROVERSY. 


245 


oaths, allegiance, &c. This can all be clearly made out on indispu- 
table evidence. This is blasphemy. Is Christ absent from the world 
that he needs a substitute? * All power is given unto me on earth 
and in heaven, and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the 
world.’ (Matth. xxviii. 18-20.) Is he impotent? Is he neglectful 
of his kingdom ? Does not the Scripture say, ‘There is one Lord,’ 
(Ephes. iv. 5.) one head as well as one body: that Christ is the only 
potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords. (1 Tim. vi. 15;) 
and the only lawgiver. (James iv. 12?) And did not Christ say to 
Peter and the other Apostles, ‘Be ye not called Rabbi (master) for one 
is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren: neither be ye cal- 
led masters, for one is your master, even Christ; but he that is great- 
est among you shall be your servant.’ (Matt. chap, xxiii. 8.) Does 
not Paul say, (2 Cor.i. 24.) *W e have not dominion over your faith: 
(yet Paul was equal to Peter,) but we are helpers of your joy: by faith 
ye stand,’ (Titus iii. 1.) ‘Put them in mind to be subject to princi- 
palities, and powers, to obey magistrate.’ (Matth. xx. 25. 26.) Jesus 
said; ‘Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion 
over them, and that they are great, exercise authority upon them, but 
it shall not be so among you.’ This was a rebuke to apostles, who 
were asking for supremacy ! So palpable is the sacrilegious arrogance 
of the titles and authoritiy of the Pope, that Pope Gregory I. said, 
(though many centuries ago) ‘I confidently say that whosoever doth 
call himself universal Bishop, or desireth to be so called, doth in his 
elation become the forerunner of anti-christ, because in his pride he 
doth set himself before all others,’ and he calls that title, (which is 
less presumptuous than others since assumed,) ‘foolish,’ ‘proud,’ ‘pro- 
fane,’ ‘wicked;’ and refers the man who aspired to it, to the example 
of Lucifer for illustration, and to the judgment of the great for re- 
tribution. How fitting is the prophecy of Paul’s, — than which a tru- 
er likeness was never drawn, and which God’s people have been ac- 
customed, for many ages, (uniting with Pope Gregory) to apply to his 
successor at Rome ! ‘And that man of sin be revealed, the son of 
perdition who opposeth, and exhalted himself above all that is called 
God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God, sitteth in the temple 
of God, showing himself that he is God. (2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.) 

Add to all this what Genebard (chron. ad Ann. 901) says: ‘For al- 
most one hundred and fifty years, about fifty Popes, having departed 
from the virtue of their predecessors, were apostate, rather than apos- 
tolical; at which times they entered in (to office) not by the door, but 
by a back-door, that is to say, by the power of the Emperors.’ Baro- 
nius too (vol. x. A. D. 908) thus writes: ‘Hast thou heard of the most 
deplorable state of things at this time when Theodora the elder, a 
strumpet of noble family, obtained supreme control (monarchiam) if 
I may so say, in the city of Rome. She prostituted her daughters to 
the Popes, the invaders of the Apostolic seat, and to the marquisses 
of Tuscany; by which means, the dominion of such wicked women 
became so absolute, that they removed at pleasure the lawfully creat- 
ed Popes, and having expelled them, intruded violent and most wick- 
ed men in their places.’ Such things are almost too bad to relate — 
how much worse to be done in the infallible seat by the Vicar of Je- 


346 


CONTROVERSY. 


sus, and the universal head of the Church! Yet the same author in- 
forms us that these monsters were received by the Church with the 
reverence due to the successor of Peter! (eundem ut Petrum cole- 
rent.) Now from such a church, is it schism to come out ? Against 
such corruptions in doctrine and radical morals, is it heresy to pro- 
test ? 

3. As you have several times alluded to my statement, ‘that indul- 
gences were a bundle of licenses to commit sin, 5 I will next present 
that doctrine. The wanton and unprincipled traficof Tetzel in in- 
dulgences, under the sanction of the Pope, may be considered the 
salient point of the Reformation. This as you know was Pope Leo 
Xtlrs way of paying for the immense Apostolical edifice of St. Pe- 
ters, which is estimated to have cost §60, 000, 000. He published in- 
dulgences and plenary remission of sins, to all such as should contri- 
bute money towards it. The form of these indulgences, drawn by 
the authority of the Pope, shows their nature. ‘May our Lord Jesus 
Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by the merits of hi9 
most holy Passion. And I, by his authority, that of his blessed Apos- 
tles, Peter and Paul, and that of the most holy Pope, granted and 
committed to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first from all ecclesi- 
astical censures, in whatever manner they have been incurred, then 
from all thy sins, transgressions, and excesses, how enormous soever 
they may be; even from such as are reserved for the cognizance of the 
Holy See, as far as the keys of the Holy Church extend. I remit to 
you all punishment which you deserve in purgatory on their account; 
and I restore you to the holy sacraments of the Church, to the unity 
of the faithful, and to thatinnocence and purity which you possessed 
at baptism: so that when you die, the gates of punishment shall be 
shut, and the gates of the paradise of delight shall be opened; and if 
you shall not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force, when 
you are at the point of death. In the name of the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost. 5 It was in the use of this daring and scanda- 
lous commission that Tetzel set up heaven for sale; and it was in re- 
sisting this infamous traffic that Luther began the work of reformation. 
The Council of Trent teaches that ‘whoever shall affirm that when 
the grace of justification is received, the offence of the penitent sin- 
ner is so forgiven, and the sentence of eternal punishment so revers* 
ed, that there remains no temporal punishment to be endured, before 
his entrance into the kingdom of heaven, either in this world, or in 
the future state in purgatory; let him be accursed. 55 It is also an ar- 
ticle of faith in the creed of Pius IY. ‘that the power of indulgences 
was left by Christ to his church, and that the use of them is very 
helpful to Christian people. 5 Bellarmine’s second and third chap- 
ters of book 1, on Indulgences, are headed: “That there exists a cer- 
tain treasury in the church, which is the foundation of indulgences; 
that the church has the power of applying, this treasury of satisfac- 
tions, and thus of granting indulgences. 5 And he proceeds to tell us 
that this treasury is made up of the merits of Christ and of the 
Saints. The merits of the Saints are called works of supererogation, 
or what a man does beyond his duty. As lately as the year 1825, 
the Pope of Rome in publishing a jubilee, uses the following lan- 


CONTROVERSY. 


24 7 


guage: ‘the authority divinely committed to us (the Pope,) to open as 
widely as possible that heavenly treasury, which, being purchased by 
the merits, passions, and virtues of our Lord Christ, of his virgin mo- 
ther, and of all the saints, the author of human salvation has entrust- 
ed the distribution of it to us,’ &c. 

In fine, that there may be no doubt of the fact, that the church of 
Rome still holds this article of faith in all its force, we point our rea- 
ders to the plenary indulgence, published in the Catholic Herald, on 
the 2d of May, 1833, on the authority of his present Holiness, Gre- 
gory ihe XVI. and signed John Hughes, Secretary. This document 
we shall examine at large hereafter. The above history and extracts 
from the standards of the church, might suffice without further proof 
or comment, to show the anti-christian character of this doctrine. 

(1.) Here we see that the Pope, a finite and sinful creature, usurps 
the power to forgive sins. But the word of God (in Mark ii. 7-13. 
Luke v. 21-26. Isaiah xliii. 25: xliv. 22. Acts x. 42. and a crowd of 
other passages,) teaches us, that it is the prerogative of Infinite and 
Almighty God alone to forgive sins. 

(2.) This doctrine teaches that there is need of adding merit to 
the merit of Christ, viz: that of the Saints. But the Scriptures teach 
us that Christ’s merits are infinite; that his righteousness is perfect; 
that he who believeth on Him is justified from all things; that Christ’s 
satisfaction is a perfect satisfaction; and that he that believeth on 
Him has passed from death unto life: ‘that there is no other name un- 
der heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved, but the 
name of Jesus, neither is there salvation in any other.’ (See 1 John 
i. 7-10. Acts xiii. 39. Acts iv. 12. Kphes. ii. 8. 2 Cor. v. 21.— 
Rom. iii. 23-29. Rom. viii. 2-4., &c. &c.) Away then with the 
wretched impiety of attempting to add to this divine and perfect sa- 
tisfaction ! 

(3.) The doctrine of Indulgences supposes that a creature, and 
he a fallen one, can do more than his duty; and have works of supe- 
rerogation for others. But what saith the Scripture, (I quote from 
our versions.) ‘Be ye therefore steadfast, immovable, always abound- 
ing in the work of the Lord.’ (1 Cor. xv. 58 ) Is there any room 
left beyond ‘abounding;’ or any time beyond ‘always ?’ ‘So, likewise 
ye, when ye have done all these things which are commanded you, 
say we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our 
duty to do.’ (Luke xvii. 10.) ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and 
with all thy strength; and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself?— 
Mark xii. 30. 31. Is there any place here, to render satisfaction for 
another, even if we had any merits of our own ? But in this fallen 
world no man ever yet rendered any meritorious satisfaction for him- 
self, much less for another. 

(4.) This doctrine supposes money may buy pardon, and remission 
of sins. Hence the abundant sale of indulgences; and the moneys 
still paid for souls in purgatory ! If this doctrine has antiquity on 
its side, it looks for parantage to Simon Magus; — and surely Peter, 
your 1st Pope (as you say) was against it; for it is written (Acts viii. 
18-20.) When Simon (Magus) saw that through laying on of the 
30 


348 


CONTROVERSY. 


Apostles’ hands, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money 
saying, give me also this power that on whomsovever I lay rny hands 
he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, thy mo- 
ney perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God 
may be purchased with money !’* 

Room is wanting to add to these particulars. We hope hereafter 
to pursuse the proof thus begun. In the mean time, the following 
contrast may show the difference between your religion and the reli- 
gion of Christ. 


Protestant Church. 

The Gospel Preached. 

The word of God says, ‘Thou shalt 
not make a graven image, or bow 
down to it.’ 

The Gospel of Christ says, ‘There is 
one Meditator between God and man, 
the man Christ Jesus.’ 

The Gospel of Christ says, ‘Christ 
was once offered to bear the sins of 
many.* 

The Gospel of Christ says, ‘Other 
foundation can no man lay than that is 
laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ 

The Gospel of Christ says, ‘The 
heavens must receive Christ until the 
restitution of all things.’ 

The Gospel of Christ says, ‘It is a 
mark of apostacy to forbid to marry, 
for marriage is honourable in all.’ 

The Gospel of Christ says, ‘We 
should not pray in an unknown tongue, 
we should pray with the understand- 
ing.’ 

The Gospel of Christ says, ‘Blessed 
are the dead who die in the Lord, for 
they rest from their labours.* 


Church of Rome. 

Another Gospel. 

The Church of Rome says, 'IVe 
may have images to kiss them, and un- 
cover our heads, and prostrate our bo- 
dies before them.* 

The Church of Rome says, ‘The 
Virgin Mary is also a Meditator, and 
she worships her as such in her of- 
fices.’ 

In the Church of Rome Christ is 
daily offered in the sacrifice of the 
IV1 ass. 

The Church of Rome says, ‘The 
true foundation is St. Peter.’ 

The Church of Rome says, ‘The 
body of Christ is every day substan- 
tially in the hands of the Priest.’ 

The Church of Rome says, ‘Mar- 
riage is not holy or honourable t.o the 
clergy.* 

The Church of Rome recites many 
of her public prayers and offices in 
Latin, which is an unknown tongue 
to most, and few can understand it 

The Church of Rome says, ‘Many 
of those who die in the Lord, go into 
purgatory, where there is no rest.’ 


The Gospel of Christ says, ‘though we or an angel from heaven 
preach any other Gospel unto you, let him be accursed.’ 


♦The following statement which was stuck up a few vears ago in the church- 
es of Madrid, may serve as a practical illustration of this subject: 

The sacred and royal bank of piety has relieved from purgatory from its 
establishment in 1721 to Nov. 1826 
1 , 030,395 souls at at expense of <£ 1 , 720,437 sterling. 

1 1 Ano S do* from Nov. 1826 ) .. . 

n ’ 402 l to Nov. 1827 , \ U ‘ 276 


1 . 041,797 1 , 734,703 

number of masses calculated to accomplish this pious work was 
558,921: consequently each soul cost about half a mass, or thirty-three shillings 
and tour pence. J 

country 1 * “ that the real characterof Romanism is but half disclosed in this 


CONTROVERSY. 


349 


I have now shown, as far as the space allowed me would admit, 
the anti-christian character of severa of jour leading doctrines. — 
Here observe, that infallibility is lost, if but one error is detected. 
But I have brought proof of many. 

II. Having thus shown that several of the leading doctrines of the 
church of Rome are anti-Christian, I proceed next to prove that they 
are novel doctrines also. Your church lays great stress on her anti- 
quity; and you say in your 1st objection, ‘that the Protestant religion 
is only 300 years old.’ But, Sir, it is as old as the religion of Christ. 
I proved in my last letter that divers churches besides those called 
Protestant, had dissented from many of the cardinal doctrine of the 
Roman Catholic church; and pointed you to the Syrian church which 
had never been subject to her. You choose, however, for good rea- 
sons, not to notice these facts. I will now point out the novelty of 
some of those doctrines which you call apostolical, and prove them 
innovations. 

1. The very canon of your church is an innovation; for you in- 
clude in it many books that were for centuries rejected by the ancient 
Christian church, as I have heretofore proved. Cardinal Cajetan 
called ‘an oracle’ in your church, thus writes, in his Commentaries, 
&c. (composed at Rome,) on the Bible. ‘That what books were ca- 
nonical or not canonical to St. Jerome, the same ought either way to 
be so with us. ‘And that the whole Latin church is hereby very 
much obliged to St. Jerome, wh,Q by serving the canonical books of 
Scripture from those that are not canonical, hath freed us from the 
approach of the Hebrews, who otherwise might say, that we had 
forged a new canon for ourselves, or parts of books, which they ne- 
ver had.’ ‘For this reason he excluded from his volume, all those 
which Jerome counted Apochryphal.’ ‘For Judith, Tobit, and the 
Maccabees* are placed out of the canon, and are placed among the 
Apocrypha, with the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, by the 
blessed Jerome.’ ‘These books are not canonical, that is, are not ac- 
cording to the rule, for establishing the faith; (Non sunt hi libri canon- 
ici, ho<?est, non sunt regulares ad firmandum ea quse sunt fulei,) but 
yet they may be called canonical, that is, they are according to rule, for 
the edification of the faithful.’ ‘Neither be disturbed by the novelty, 
if at any time you should find these books numbered among the ca- 
nonical, either in the Councils or sacred Doctors:’ and he adds ‘that 
Augustine and the Council of Carthage are to be reconciled with 
Jerome, and the Council of Laodicea, by this distinction.’ (1 Cap. 
Epis. Heb. and Epis. ded. ad Pap. ante com. in Lib. Y. T.) This is 
most decisive. Erasmus is still more strong. And I could bring fif- 
ty testimonies, in the different ages, to prove that your canon is a 
corrupted and new canon. 

2. The claim of the Pope to be universal Bishop and Vicar of Christ 

is a novelty. The title of universal Bishop was not confered on, 

or claimed by the Bishop of Rome till the 7 th century. Phocas (not 
Christ) who murdered his predecessor, and who waded to the throne 
through his blood, conferred this title on Boniface the Sd in the 606 
after a criminal collusion between them on the subject. We have 
seen above, that Gregory, Bishop of Rome had resisted the bestow- 


550 


CONTROVERSY. 


ing of this blasphemous title on the Bishop of Constantinople — as the 
forerunner of Anti-Christ. This very fact shows that he had no such 
title, and claimed no such headship. And it is notorious that the Bi- 
shops of Constantinople and Rome long contended for the supremacy; 
that it was first tendered to the Bishop of Constantinople; and taken 
from him to be given to the Bishop of Rome. The present Pope of 
Rome is as unlike the first Bishop, as a common justice of the peace 
is unlike an emperor. The Apostle John survived Peter, the pretend- 
ed 1st Pope, some forty years. Either then there was no Pope in the 
world for forty years, or else an apostle of Christ was subject to him! 
Pope is a name synonimous with father — and was given to all bishops 
until the time of Gregory the VII. Even the succession of the Bi- 
shops of Rome, on Papal principles, cannot be made out. If it could, 
they were like other Bishops — and most unlike the present Pope: 
they had nothing above other bishops: they were wholly inferior to all 
the apostles: Peter was never Bishop of Rome: and the Church of 
Rome instead of being the oldest church, was established long after 
the church at Jerusalem, Antioch, &c. So clear is it that the supre- 
macy of the Pope is a novelty and an innovation. 

3. Transubstantiation is an utter novelty. This doctrine was so 
far from being held by the primitive church, that we know its date 
and age. It is an absurdity so great that it required implicit faith to 
believe it, and ‘is incapable of proof, by sense or reason, Scripture 
miracles, antiquity, or by any testimony whatever.’ That it is a no- 
velty is clear from this, that the famous Roman Catholic Scotus af- 
firms that it was not an article of faith before the Lateran Council 
(A. D. 1215) and that it cannot be proved from the sacred Scriptures. 
Bellarmine owns fbook 3 clip. 23, on the Eucharist , ) that Scotus says 
so, and he admits ‘though the Scriptures quoted by us above seems 
clear to us, and ought to convince any man who is not forward; yet 
it may justly be doubted whether it be so (\. e. proved by Scripture j 
when the most learned and acute men, such as Scotus in particular 
hold a contrary opinion.’ Ocham, Biel, Bishop Fisher, cardinal Ca- 
jetan, and Melchior Cane hold the same belief. Now it it be not 
taught in Scripture, surely it is not an ancient doctrine; and if it be 
doubtful, then it ‘was not one of those fixed stars in the firmament of 
revelation’ of which you speak, or a positive fact or truth, such as 
you contend every Roman Catholic doctrine is. Yet the Council of 
Trent decreed in all the fierce spirit of fanatical zeal, ‘Whosoever 
shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there are 
truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and conse- 
quently Christ entire, but shall affirm that he is present therein only 
in a sign, or figure, or by his power, let him be accursed.’ Here then, 
on the one hand, is history, and the testimony of your own chosen 
writers, proving the novelty of this doctrine, and a grave Council 
cursing and damning all who say it is not the very truth of Christi- 
anity, on the other. 

4. It is an anti-christian novelty to deny the cup to the people, in 
the eucharist. The canon of Trent says, ‘whosoever shall affirm that 
the Holy Catholic Church has not just grounds for restricting the 


CONTROVERSY. 


2*1 


laity and non -officiating clergy to communion in the species of bread 
only, or that she hath erred therein, let him be accursed.’ This is 
awful language when levelled directly at the Lord Jesus: for ‘He took 
the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of 
it’ — ‘and they all drank of it’ — ‘for as often as ye eat this bread and 
drink this cup, ye do show his death till he come.’ (See Math. xxvi. 

1 Cor. xi. tkc.) 

Here then is annulling a law of Christ, and violating a sacrament 
of his appointing ! And what makes the impiety as well as the no- 
velty of this article of faith apparent, is that the Councils of Con- 
stance and Trent, acknowledge it as an alteration, and vindicate the 
change. The Council of Constance, session 13, says: ‘that although 
this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the 
primitive church, it was afterwards received under both kinds by the 
officiating priests, and by the people, under the species of bread 

alone this therefore being approved, it is now made a law.’ And 

the holy synod ordered that all transgressors of this decree ‘be ef- 
fectually punished.’ The Trentine decree is if possible still more 
outrageous. Here then, out of her own mouth your church is con- 
victed of the most glaring innovations. And I need not quote Jus- 
tin Martyr, Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Pope Geleasius, Gratian, 
Aquinas, &c. to show that this flagrant change, is a novelty which 
none can deny, an outrage which none can defend. 

The above specimens of the novelty and innovations of your doc- 
trines, fully meet your first objection, and prove that your religion is 
not the religion of Christ, since as you say, ‘the religion of Christ is 
1800 years old.’ 

Your objection has no application, except to your own religion, for 
we profess no new religion. Ours is as old as the Bible. Yours, I 
have proved above, is characterised by novelty. We pretend to no 
miracles, but those that established the religion of Christ. Whereas 
.your pretensions to them indicate that your church feels the need of 
new seals to a new religion. And yet the utter failure of her at- 
tempts to work miracles, proves that she innovates without divine 
right, or being sent of God. 

Your third objection is only a repetition of what has again and 
again been answered by me; and appears, with the fourth edition of 
your ten heads on the rule of faith, like the books of the sybil which 
were offered to Tarquin, growing less and less, yet setting up the 
same claims time after time. 

Your fourth objection wilh»be easily exposed, and turned directly 
againstyou,when we come to show the variations of Romanismjand in 
its proper place, if Providence permit, we shall bring up in parallel 
with it, the the Protestant religion. 

Before I close this letter, it is necessary to notice briefly what, 
for the sake of distinction, we will call multifarious matters. 

1. You tell us that ‘Pascal was a Jansenist, and as such was not a 
Romanisit nor even a Catholic.’ I am pleased to find that you ad- 
mit the distinction between Romanist, and Catholic. It is from con- 
founding these very dissimilar characteristics, that many of the 
errors of your church have arisen. The history of Janseinism most 


252 


CONTROVERSY. 


clearly proves that your communion ha? been no stranger to sects: 
and its condemnation by the Pope, is one of the most remarkable 
evidences of the fact that the church of Rome is an enemy to evan- 
gelical truth. This is apparent as the light of day from the Bull of 
Pope Clement XI. issued in 1713, with advice of a congregation of 
Cardinals, against ‘Father QuesnePs moral reflections upon the New 
Testament.’ We are by no means disposed to defend his doctrines 
in the gross. But will not Christians of every name look with amaze- 
ment at the head of ‘the infallible church’ denouncing such proposi- 
tions as the following. We select them from 101 which are specified 
and condemned in the Bull, viz: 

‘No. 26. No graces are given except by faith. 66. He who would 
draw near to God, must neither come to Him with brutal passions, 
nor be led as beasts are by natural instincts, or by fear, but by faith 
and by love. 80. The reading of the Holy Scripture is for every 
body. 94. Nothing gives the enemy of the church a worse opinion 
concerning the church, than to see therein an absolute dominion ex- 
ercised over the faith of believers, and divisions fomented on account 
of such things as are prejudicial, neither to the faith nor morals. 100. 
That it is a deplorable time when God is thought to be honoured by 
persecuting the truth, and the disciples thereof. This time is 

come W T e often think we sacrifice to God a wicked person, and 

we sacrifice to the Devil a servant of God.’ These are some of the 
doctrines which the Bull ‘condemns and rejects as false, captious, 
shocking, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injuri- 
ous to the church and her practice.’ How remarkably this Bull con- 
firms a multitude of my former reasonings ! How true is it that Ro- 
manism is not Jansenism, nor Christianity. And now as to the Je- 
suits, whom by implication you approve, and who were the victori- 
ous opponents of Jansenism at the court of Rome, the very name, 
though bespeaking a follower of Jesus, conveys an association so of- 
fensive that 1 will not define it, lest I should appear to be personal.— 
But how strange it is that they were expelled in a former age from so 
many countries, and their order abolished by one Pope, and in latter 
days revived by another. Each Pope gives potent reasons for the 
act. Both could not be infallible. Vet both seem to have been ap- 
proved by the suffrages of the church. How do you explain it? 

You say ‘our Bibles are in English.’ Answer. Is your English 
version authorised by the church ? You say ‘The first edition would 
he still on the bookseller’s shelves if there existed such a prohibition.’ 
Answer. Has the following law of your church been repealed? If 
not, what does it mean? ‘In as much as it is manifest from experi- 
ence that if the Holy Bible translated into the vulgar tongue (for ex- 
ample into English) be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the te- 
merity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it it is 
on this point referred to thejudgment of Bishops or Inquisitors, who 
may by the advice of the priest or confessor permit the reading of 

the Bible ...and this permission they must have in writing. But if 

any one- shall have the presumption to r ead or possess it without such 
written permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first 
delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.’ And even ‘Booksellers’ (l 


CONTROVERSY. 


253 


hope Mr. Cummiskey will look well to the written permission) ‘shall 
forfeit the value of the books’ (is not this church and state ?) ‘to be 
applied by the Bishop to some pious use, and be subjected by the Bi- 
shop to such other penalties as the Bishop shall judge proper.’ Many 
of your readers, who wonder at your former silence on this subject, 
would esteem it a favour if you will now explain this contradiction. 
And as to your Breviary, your Mass-book in full, your book of Coun- 
cils, and book of Bulls, do you say they are in English ? 

3. You shun the Bull of Innocent VIII. in a way that is most pe- 
culiar. In the first instance you evade its bloody contents by the ar- 
gument that a mistake of ten years had been made in its date by me. 
Next you defend it by saying that the Waldenses ‘slew the servant’ 
(for these are the words of the annalist) of the Inquisitor ! But what 
right had the Inquisitor to arrest and destroy the Waldenses P And 
if the Waldenses did slay his servant, what had the Pope to do with 
that ? Where was the civil government P If a Protestant should 
wickedly slay a Roman Catholic in London, or in Edinburgh, has the 
Pope a right to order his Inquisitor to slay him and all others who think 
with him? Yes, surely according to your reasoning ! and the civil 
government is only the Pope’s creature. Lastly, when I adduce your 
own historian in proof of the Bull, or Brief of the Pope, you say ‘the 
annals of Baronius come down only to the year 1198, and yet you 
quote his authority for a fact which should have taken place in 1487". 
How is this r’ And is it then possible that this is designed for a se- 
rious and candid answer to the authority of the Historian ? Can you 
be ignorant of the fact that Raynald is the continuator of the annals 
of Baronius; that he brought them down to the year 1534, and that his 
continuation is published with the permission and appoval of the 
highest authority at Rome ? And can you mean to argue that as it is 
the continuator only who says there was such a Bull, therefore there 
\yas no such Bull ? I have not words to express to you my surprise 
at the impolicy of your defence, not to name its want of candour — - 
The fact then still returns upon you with augmenting force, that the 
said Bull ordering Heretics to be butchered, or made slaves, if not 
exterminated, was indeed issued by the Pope, and executed by his 
minions in the name of the God of mercy! 

4. It is true that Presbyterians were once in a generic term, class- 
ed with other Protestants under the title of Puritans: and it is also 
true that Congregationalists, Independents, Presbyterians; and Puri- 
tans, as a body were and are, in their fundamental doctrines, one 
people. But you stated on the authority, as you say of Thomas Jef- 
ferson, that Presbyterians, persecuted Roman Catholics in Maryland, 
after having been protected by them: and then you change the term 
into Puritans as if they were convertible, and say the Presbyterians 
persecuted them. Whereas the fact is, there were no Presbyterians 
in Maryland at that time; and by the change of words in your two 
successive letters, your first misrepresent the facts, and then seek to 
conceal that misrepresentation. 

5. As for the authority ofLenfant, in the case of the martyr IIuss 
it is in vain you seek to destroy his authority in this matter. The 
treachery of the Council of Constance is too palpable to be denied 


254 


CONTROVERSY. 


by you, much less defended. But the rebound of your defence acts 
on your own cause alone. It were easy, by a number of Roman Ca- 
tholic writers, to show that with more candour, they admit and jus- 
tify the broad principle, ‘that no faith is to be kept with heretics.’ — 
Simancea, fCath. Inst. Tit 46.J ‘Faith is not to be kept with here- 
tics, as neither with tyrants, pirates, nor public robbers Certain 

heretics were therefore, justly burned by the solemn judgment of 
the Council of Constance, although promise of security had been 
given them. For if faith be not kept with tyrants, pirates, and other 
robbers, who kill the body, much less with heretics who destroy souls.’ 
This writer was a Bishop, a Canonist, and a Calvin; and was surely 
of a very ‘diBerent opinion’ from you as to the Council of Constance. 
He also cites Salamonius, and Placa, as holding the same doctrine. — 
And not only so, but Popes in great numbers, have in work and deed 
maintained the same general principle. Gregory IX. Urban VI. Paul 
V. Innocent X. Honorious, Eugenius IV., &c. avowed this infamous 
principle. And worse than all, Councils have done the same. The 
Sd and 4th Councils of Lateran, the Council of Lyons, and Pisa, as 
well as the Councils of Constance, held the same shocking doctrine. 
Why therefore, should we stop to contend for one case, when it has 
been the common doctrine, and practice of the church of Rome to 
keep no faith with heretics? 

6. You strangely expose yourself in the alleged omission of the 
‘dubio.’ The word was in my manuscript when it went to the press; 
it was corrected by me in the proof-sheet, on Saturday; it was in the 
revised proof, which I corrected on Monday; it was in the Presbyte- 
rian, ancl Herald, of Wednesday and Thursday; and I did not see 
your strange critique on its absence until the next Saturday ! Charge 
me not then with want of candour; while you ‘strain at gnats, and 
swallow camels.’ I cannot consent to cover your blunders and ca- 
vils, at the price of owning what I never did. 

7. After the above statement, the charge of ‘garbling’ will be in- 
terpreted, without the need of my disproving it a third time. 

8. “The considerable undertone” of Protestant and Presbyterian 
dissatisfaction dies away before my call for proof; and ‘the general’ 
impression that the Bishop’s charge was intended as a prop to my 
weak arguments, shrinks into ‘let me suppose that I was mistaken.” 
But you are assuredly very much mistaken when you think that the 
Protestant Press is receding from the publication of your letters. 

I am acquainted with almost twenty Protestant papers that publish 
this controversy. If then your reasoning is just in explaining their 
pretended suppression of it into a token of defeat, what conclusion 
must we draw from this redundant and undaunted republication? 
Not surely that Protestants despair of the truth, or shrink from free 
inquiry. 

9. You seem much disturbed by my retorting your figure of the 
serpent stinging the bosom that nurtured it. I assure you I meant 
neither to stir the American people to disturb the equal rights of our 
Roman Catholic citizens, nor to charge those citizens with being de- 
signing or ungrateful; and no ingenuity can pervert my language so 
as to convey this meaning. It was not the people, but to the priest- 


CONTROVERSY. 


255 



hood L referred, when retorting your charge against Presbyterians. 
I informed you that the nation was awaking to a proper discovery of 
their influence and designs. No man can be a consistent Roman 
Catholic Priest under such bonds and vows to a foreign prince, and 
spiritual dictator, without being of necessity exclusive, and an eager 
proselyter of all men to his peculiar system. The history of the 
Jesuits, (who have been called, by a strange union of discordant terms 
and dissimilar beings, ‘the militia of Jesus’) is ample evidence of the 
truth of my assertion. 

As to the sum which you say has been expended on Dickson Col- 
lege, Carlisle, I take it on your word to be so. If Presbyterians (as 
formerly at Carlisle,) are selected by our public institutions to aid 
in their instruction, l leave you to determine whether it be their crime, 
their calamity, or their honour and duty to serve them: and if the 
Legislature of the State choose, in its bounty, to assist these institu- 
tions, whether you will condemn them for it? You should have 
known the history of Dickson College better, however than to call it 
a ‘Presbyterian College.’ I would remind you also, that Papal mo- 
ney is poured into this country from year to year for the very purpose 
of proselyting us heretics, and building up institutions for the estab- 
lishment of Popery among us. In the year 1828, 120,000 franks were 
confessedly (l know not how much more in reality) sent from Rome 
to sustain your cause in this country ! You compel me reluctantly to 
dwell on these topics. I hope in your next to see manly arguments 
in a Christian spirit, and a cessation of that low and vulgar warfare 
which must speeeily weary the patient and kind readers of our let- 
ters. Yours, &c. 

John Breckinridge. 


31 


CONTROVERSY. No. XXIll. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF 
CHRIST? 

Philadelphia , July 3, 1S33. 

To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 

Rev. Sir , — In your letter No. XX. when we were discussing the 
previous question, you gave, as the definition of the Protestant rule 
of faith, ‘The word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old 
and New Testament;’ and because I did not attack the ‘word of God,’ 
you charge me with having evaded ‘the real Protestant rule of faith, 
and argued against its abuses alone!’ If you had thus candidly, gi- 
ven up private interpretation as an ‘abuse’ at the commencement of 
the discussion, we might have saved much time and labour. But I 
am surprised, and indeed gratified, to perceive that good sense, and 
the pressing necessities of the case, urged you, finally to yield, howe- 
ver reluctantly, so precious a tribute to the majesty of Truth. It 
certainly did not occur to you that by this admission, you sapped the 
very foundations of the Protestant religion, since it is known to all 
men that this very ‘abuse’ is the parent of the Reformation. 

When I ask you to define the Protestant religion, you tell me, that 
it is ‘a religion which protests against the (supposed) errors of the 
Catholic church,’ (in so much the definition applies to Deism as well 
as Protestantism, since both protest against the same doctrines,) ‘and 
which is derived exclusively from, and consistent with the Holy Scrip- 
tures as the only infallible rule of faith and practice.’ This is your 
definition. But how is the Protestant religion ‘derived’ from the 
Scriptures? Is it not by private interpretation ? Now, Rev. Sir, will 
you ‘derive’ your religion through a medium which you, yourself, 
have denounced as an ‘abuse ?’ 

Again, the Protestant religion is ‘a religion consistent with the Holy 
Scriptures.’ But who is to be the judge of this? Or how is it to be 
determined whether any particular doctrine of Protestantism is ‘con* 
Bistent’ with the Holy Scriptures or not? Does not this position 
again, betray the ‘radical delusion’ of the whole system? Every 
sect considers that its own notions are ‘derived from, and consistent 
with the Holy Scriptures.’ And pray, do the holy Scriptures contain 
in reality, the notions of every sect of Protestants? If we admit 
the principle of your definition at all, it will be as favourable to the 
Protestant who denies the Trinity of persons in God, as to him who 
admits it; — to the one who holds that there are, at least, two Baptism 
and the Lord’s Supper. Every sect maintains that its own peculiar 
prejudices are ‘derived from and consistent with the Holy Scriptures,’ 
and how am I to know which are the doctrines that are really, and 
truly derived from the sacred volume? 


CONTROVERSY. 


s$r 

You make the following statement, in the first paragraph of your 
last letter. ‘If, as you say, I am the original assailant, why do you 
tell me that mine is the business of defence?’ Answer. Because, 
when I held you responsible as the original assailant, it was as the 
challenger ‘of priests and bishops’ to the field of controversy; but it 
was agreed, that we should commence by the rule of faith. Those 
who have read your letters through, to the final and very memorable 
concession, by which you recognise ‘private interpretation’ as an 
‘abuse,’ will be able to appreciate the merits of your ‘defence’ of the 
Protestant rule of faith. The second question to be examined, ac* 
cording to mutual agreement, was, whether ‘the Protestant Religion 
be the Religion of Christ.’ Now I undertake, as the very question 
supposes, to prove that it is not: and I should suppose that yours was 
the opposite side of the case, which I intimated by saying that yours 
is the ‘business of defence.’ This is the position selected by your- 
self, as may be seen by referring to your last letter in the preliminary 
correspondence, where you say, ‘I am to defend the Protestant faith.’ 
The sincere inquirer, who looked to your last letter, for this promised 
‘defence’ of the Protestant religion, must have found himself morti- 
fyingly disappointed. 

In my last letter l reduced the question to the simplicity of a dil- 
emma, from which I defy you to escape. It is this: hither the Pro- 
testant religion is a religion differing from the religion of Christ;— 
and by this admission you give up the question — or else, the religion 
of Christ was not professed by any society of Christians, previous to 
the time of Luther. And in that case, the religion of Christ is only 
three hundred years old!! To which of these alternatives do you 
choose to cling? for, one of them is inevitable. To this argument, 
you oppose the ‘defence’ of — silence. Not a word of authority; not 
a word of reasoning! Silence only, prudent silence. 

My second argument grew out of the first: It was this, that when- 
ever God gave new doctrines, such as the Protestant religion was, 
when Luther and the rest began to preach it; he always gave, at the 
same time, to the preachers of such doctrines, the gift of miracles, 
to show that they were not impostors; this gift, however, was denied 
to the authors of the Protestant religion, and therefore the inference 
is, that God never deputed them. To this argument the only answer 
given is, that ‘we (Protestants) profess no new religion.’ That you 
say so, l admit. But in order to show this, you were bound to 
prove that your religion had been professed by some society, in some 
part of the world, in some age, between the preaching of Christ, and 
the preaching of Luther. But there was no such society, and there- 
fore your gratuitous assertion of the Protestant religion’s not being 
a ‘new religion,’ must go for nothing. We require proof. 

My third argument was, that the Protestant religion being a reli- 
gion of opinions, is not the religion of Christ, which was a religion 
of positive truths. Consequently that they are not the same. To 
this you give no reply, except that I had introduced it before!!! But 
it has never been answered; nor has even an attempt been made at a 
refutation of it. The one was a religion of certainty; the other is a 
religion of chance. Can you deny this? 


258 


CONTllOV EUS Y. 


My fourth argument was that the Reformers themselves denounced 
each other as heretics and deceivers of souls. And to this argument 
you reply that it Svill be easily exposed and turned directly against 
me.’ As if this invalidated the inference which it furnishes against 
the religion, of which these Reformers were the autiiors! These few 
remarks of yours, are the only testimony contained in the whole of 
your last letter, to show the reader that ‘the Protestant religion, is the 
religion of Christ, 5 

As to your objections against the doctrines of the Catholic church, 
even if they were well founded, they do not appertain to the present 
subject; and you will recollect that one of our rules binds us ‘to ad- 
here strictly to the subject of debate for the time being, and to admit 
no second topic until the first shall have been exhausted. 5 In obe- 
dience to this regulation, I shall pay no attention to any thing you 
may have to say against the Catholic doctrine, until we shall have 
discussed the present question, viz: ‘whether the Protestant religion 
is the religion of Christ. 5 But that question once disposed of, 1 shall 
allow you ‘to take up any doctrine of the church, and I shall hold 
myself preparedto refute all the arguments you may bring against it. 5 

The candid reader, who wishes to investigate the grounds of his 
religion with a view of arriving at the truth, should reject from, his 
mind every preconceived opinion, which, on examination, he does not 
find to have been established on the basis of facts. The supposition 
which Protestantism holds forth to its votaries, is, that the religion of 
Christ, established in its purity, by the Apostles, gradually, and, what 
is rather strange, imperceptibly, became corrupted, and was finally 
restored to its primitive purity, in the 16th century of the church, by 
the event which is called the ‘Reformation. 5 Now, Rev. Sir, to save 
you the trouble, at this moment, of straying from the question, to 
prove that this was the case, let us suppose for sake of argument that 
it was. Let us suppose that Christ after having promised to be with 
his church, in the teaching of ‘all nations, till the end of time, 5 violat- 
ed his promise; and that, in fact, all Christendom was buried, as the 
English Homily book has it, ‘in damnable idolatry for the space of 
eight hundred years and more 5 — and starting even from this extrava- 
gant supposition, you will find it a difficult task to prove that ‘the 
Protestant religion is the religion of Christ. 5 And why P 

1. Because no man can tell what the Protestant religion is. We 
know it is a compound of heterogeneous opinions about tire meaning 
of the Bible. As you have defined it, you have bound 'yourself to 
prove that Quakerism, Episcopalianism, Baptistism, Methodism, .Pres* 

1 byterianism, Universaiism, Arminianism, Unitarian! sm, Swedenbor- 
gianism, are all ‘the religion of Christ; 5 since the mercy of your defi- 
nition graciously embraces them all ! Each of them is ‘a religion, ex- 
clusively derived from, and consistent with the Hoty Scriptures as the 
only infallible rule of faith and practice. 5 Now, Rev. Sir, permit me 
to ask you, did you seriously intend to distribute, as your definition 
imports, the religion of Christ equally among all these sects ? Do 
you mean to defend the doctrines of all these denominations ? For 
all these according to your definition, constitute the Protestant reli- 
gion; and this you have undertaken to vindicate, as ‘the religion of 


CONTROVERSY. 


259 


Christ.’ How much wiser would it have been in you, to have borrow- 
ed the language of the celebrated Bishop Watson, of the church of 
England, and told us that the Protestant religion is that system of 
Christian liberty, in which ‘a man believes what he pleases, and pro- 
fesses what he believes.’ Sentire quse velit, et quae sentit, loqui. 

2. But by another definition you have said that the Protestant re- 
ligion is ‘the religion of the Reformation.’ Now the only way to as- 
certain the religion of the Reformation, is by bringing to view the 
doctrines of the Reformers as stated by themselves. To begin then 
with the father of the revolution, he tells us that ‘God works the evil 

in us, as well as the good.’ Is this ‘the religion of Christ?’ — 

And that ‘by his own will, lie (God) necessarily renders us worthy of 
damnation, so as to seem to take pleasure in the torments of the miser- 
able.’ (Luth. Opera, ed. Wittemb. Tom. ii. p.437.) Is this ‘the re- 
ligion of Christ ? Again, ‘If God foresaw, says he, that Judas would 
be a traitor, Judas was compelled to be a traitor; nor w r asit in his pow- 
er to be otherwise.’ (Luth.de Servo. Arbit. fol. 460.) Is this ‘the 
religion of Christ ?’ ‘Man's will is, (says the same Reformer,) like a 
horse: if God sit upon it; it goes as God would have it; if the Devil 
ride it, it goes as the Devil would have it; nor can the will choose its 
rider, but each of them (viz: God and the Devil) strives which shall 
get posssssion of it.’ (Ibid. vol. ii.) Is this ‘the religion of Christ?’ 
‘Let this be your rule,’ (continues the same father,) ‘in interpreting the 
Scriptures; whenever they command agood word, do you understand 
that they forbid it.’ (Ibid. 'Pom. iii. p. 171.) Is this, Rev. Sir, ‘the 
religion of Christ.’ O what a task you have undertaken ! 

And now let us see what Calvin, your own Calvin, puts forth as 
‘the religion of the Reformation,’ which, you say is, the religion of 
Christ. ‘God requires, says he, nothing of us but faith; he asks noth- 
ing of us but that we believe.’ (Calv. Inst. L. iii. c. 23.) ‘It is plain- 
ly wrong to seek for any other cause of damnation, than the hidden 
councils of God.’ .... ‘Men, by the free will of God, without any 
demerit of their own, are predestinated to eternal death.’ (Ibid.) Is 
this ‘the religion of Christ?’ The whole operation of this doctrine is 
to produce fanaticism in belief, and quietude of conscience in the 
midst of immorality. This same impious doctrine of Calvin, is well 
approved, in the Presbyterian Confession of faith as amended in the 
year 1821. 

“By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men 
and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-or- 
dained to everlasting death.’ 

These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore ordained, are 
particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so cer- 
tain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. — - 
(Presbyterian Confession of Faith, p. 16, 17.) Now what else is this, 
but saying, with Calvin, that ‘the hidden council of God, is the sole 
cause of damnation?’ 

There are few persons who will not acknowledge the justice of the 
following commentary, on this doctrine of Calvin, by a Protestant 
companion of his own. ‘He is a false God,’ says this author, ‘who 
(according to Calvin’s showing) is so slow to mercy, so quick to wrath. 


CONTROVERSY. 


who has created the greatest part of mankind to destroy them, and 
has not only predestined them to damnation, but even to the cause of 
their damnation. This God, then, must have determined from 
all eternity, and he now actually wishes and causes that we be ne- 
cessitated to sin; so that thefts, adulteries and murders, are never 
committed but at his impulse; for he suggests to men perverse and 
shameful affections; he hardens them not merely by simple permis- 
sion, but actually and efficaciously, so that the wicked man accom- 
plishes the work of God and not his own, and it is no longer Satan, 
but Calvin’s God, who is really the father of lies. (Castel. in lib de 
Prsedestad Calvin.) Is this, Rev. Sir, ‘the Religion ot Christ?’ 

This, however, was the religion of the Reformation: — of Luther, 
who maintained that the will of man is a horse, alternately bestrid- 
den, by God and the Devil, whichever succeeds to mount first, and is 
always obedient to its rider, for the time being. This was the reli- 
gion of Geneva, as we have seen. 'Phis was the religion of England 
itself, as some of its most eminent divines admit and deplore, as for 
instance, Bishop Bancroft. (A survey of the pretended holy disci- 
pline, p. 44.) But we have nearer testimony than that of an English 
Bishop. Doctor Samuel Miller of Princeton, teds us, in his Intro- 
ductory Lectures on ‘creeds and confessions,’ that ‘the Calvanistic 
articles of the church of England were the means of keeping her doc- 
trinally pure, to a very remarkable degree, for the greater part of a 
hundred years! In the reign of James the 1st, says the Doctor, ve- 
ry few opponents of Galvanism dated to avow their opinions; and of 
those who did avow them, numbers were severely disciplined, and 
others saved themselves from similar treatment bv subsequent silence 
and discretion.’ (p. 60.) Those must have been glorious days for 
England, when, for neaily a hundred years, her church was almost 
pure, thanks, not to the Bible, but to her ‘Calvinistic articles,’ against 
which no one ‘dared’ to say a word. 

Here then, is only one of the doctrines of the Reformation, by 
which we see free will extinguish; — and man degraded from his sta- 
tion as a moral and responsible agent, to a mere machine, operated on 
for evil as well as good, by a predestinating influence, over which he 
has no controul. On the other hand we see God himself, represented 
as punishing, with eternal damnation, his creatures for having done, 
what they could not avoid, by complying with those inevitable de- 
crees, which had been framed in the solitude of eternity past. Is 
this ‘the Religion of Christ?’ 

5. But supposing, as Protestants do, that the true religion, contra- 
ry to the promise of the Saviour, had disappeared from the world;— 
were the Reformers, I ask, such men as God would have employed to 
restore it ? I am aware that under the influence of those strong feel- 
ings with which that turbulent epoch abounded, their opponents may 
have done injustice to their character. On this account, I shall not 
give one line on the testimony of their Catholic cotemporaries. Such 
testimony would naturally be received with suspicion by my Protest- 
ant readers. In justice to all parties, then, I shall give the fathers 
of the Protestant religion as they described themsefves, and as they 


CONTROVERSY * 


SC 1 

describe each other. But first let me state who were the principle 
personages, by whom this great work was accomplished. 

Luther, an Augustinian friar. CEcolampadius, a monk. Melanc- 
thon, a professor of Greek. Zuinglius, a cure in Switzerland. Bu- 
cer, a Dominican friar. Calvin, a French ecclesiastic. Ochin, a 
Capuchin friar. Henry the 8th in England. And in Scotland John 
Knox, a priest, whom Dr. Samuel Johnson describes as ‘the ruffian of 
the Reformation.’ 

Luther says of himself, that ‘while a Catholic he passed his life in 
austerities, in watching, in fasts and praying, in poverty, chastity and 
obedience’ ( Torn. v. In cap. 1. ad Gal. v. 14) But hear what he 
says of himself, after his ‘reformation.’ ‘As it does not depend on 
me not to be a man, so neither does it depend on me to be without a 
woman.’ (Ibid. Serm. de Matrim. p. 119) 

Melancthon who was his very Boswell, testifies that he received 
blows from him’ ‘ab ipso colaphos accepi.’ (Lett, to Theodore.) ‘I 
tremble says he (writing to the same friend) when 1 think of the pas- 
sions of Luther; they yield not in violence to the passions of Hercu- 
les.’ 

Hospinian, another reformer, says, speaking of Luther, ‘This man 
is absolutely mad. He never ceases to combat truth against all jus- 
tice, even against the cry of his own conscience.’ 

CEcolampadius said of him, ‘He is pulled up with pride and arro- 
gance, and seduced by Satan.’ And Zuinglius corroborates this tes- 
timony. ‘Yes’ says he, ‘the Devil has made himself master of Luther.’ 

After the death of Zuinglius, however, Luther pronounced on him 
the following panegyrick in return: ‘Zuinglius, is dead and damned, 
having desired like a thief and a rebel, to compel others, to follow his 
error. (Tom. 1 J. p. 36. in Florirn.) 

The whole church of Zurick (against Luther’s Confession, page 
61 J writes as follows: ‘Luther treats us an execrable and condemned 
sect, but let him take care lest he condemns himself as an arch here- 
tic, from the sole fact, that he will not and cannot associate with those 
who confess Christ. But how strangely does this fellow allow him- 
self to be carried away by his devils. How disgusting is his language, 
and how full are his words of the Devil of Hell ! He says that the 

devils dwell nowand forever in the bodies of the Zuinglians He 

wrote this work by the impulse and the dictation of the Devil, with 
whom he had dealings, and who in the struggle seemed to have thrown 
him by victorious arguments.’ flbid.J 

‘In very truth,’ said Calvin, ‘Luther is extremely corrupt.:....(ci<ed 
by C. SchlusombergJ would to God that he had been attentive to dis- 
cover his vices.’ (Theol. Calv. L. 1 1. fol. I26.J Calvin elsewhere 
speaks very contemptuously of the Lutheran Church; fin his reply to 
Westphalj he says, ‘Thy school is nothing but a stinking pig stye; 
dost thou hear me, thou dog? dost thou hear me, thou mad-man ? dost 
thou hear me, thou huge beast ?’ 

Of Carlosladius, Melancthon says that ‘he was a brutal fellow, 
without wit or learning, or any light of common sense; who, far from 
having any mark of the Spirit of God, never either knew or practic- 
ed any of the duties of civilized life,’ To Calvin himself, however. 


263 


CONTROVERSY. 


the testimony of his brother reformers, is certainly not very favour- 
able. 

‘Calvin,’ said Bucer, ‘is a true mad dog. The man is wicked and 
he judges of people according as he loves or hates them.’ Boudoin 
could not bear him, because as he says, he found him to be vindictiv e 
and blood thirsty, ‘propter nemiam vindictse et sanguinis sitim.’ This 
was the reason alleged by him for renouncing Calvin’s doctrine. 

Stancharus, one of the Reformers, addressing his brother of Gen- 
eva writes, ‘what demon has urged thee, O Calvin! to declaim with 
the Arians against the Son of God? It is that anti christ of the 
north that thou hast the imprudence to adore, that grammarian, Mel- 
ancthon,’ (de Mediat in Calv. instit. No. 4.) ‘Beware Christian rea- 
ders, (he continues,) above all, ye ministers of the word, beware of 
the books of Calvin. They contain an impious doctrine, the blas- 
phemies of Arianism, as if the spirit of Michael Servetus had es- 
caped from the executioner, and according to the system of Plato 
had transmigrated whole and entire into Calvin.’ (Ibid No. 3.) 

Now, Rev. Sir, if Catholics had written these things of the Re- 
formers, 1 should not have troubled you with a single quotation. But 
these are the Reformers themselves, speaking of each other; and of 
each other, in the exclusive capacity of Reformers! Their private 
character affords matter for quite as painful a chapter. But the 
question will naturally force itself on every reflecting mind, ‘if the 
promise of Jesus Christ failed, in preserving the purity of the doc- 
trine which he brought from heaven, is it likely that these are the 
men whom God would have appointed to reform his Church? If they 
spoke the truth of each other, then it is evident that they were lost 
to all principle of religious rectitude: but if they calumniated each 
other, it is clear that they were utter strangers to truth, and moral 
integrity.’ In either case their testimony proves, that both them- 
selves and their doctrines stood quite as much in need of being re- 
formed, after the ‘Reformation’ as before. 

But were the morals of their followers improved, by joining in 
that ecclesiastical insurrection of which they were the prime agita- 
tors? And through which they pressed onward, in the spirit of unan- 
imous discord. Let us hear their own testimony on the subject. 

‘The world,’ says Luther, (Serm. in Postil. Kvang. i. adv.) ‘grows 
every day worse and worse. It is plain that men are much more 
covetous, malicious, and resentful; much more unruly, shameless, and 
full of vice, than they were in the time of Popery.’ ‘Formerly,’ 
says he (Serm. Dorn. 26 post Trin.) ‘when we were seduced by the 
Pope, men willingly followed good works, but now all their study is 
to get every thing to themselves, by exactions, pillage, theft, lying, 
usury.’ The writings of this prime Reformer, abound with similar 
testimonies, which proves that he regarded morals at least, the Refor- 
mation was all in the inverse ratio. Aurifaber, Luther’s biographer, 
reports him to have declared that ‘since the appearance of Gospel* 
(meaning his own separation from all the religions in the world as 
well as the Catholic Church) virtue seems to be utterly extinct, and 
piety driven from the earth.’ 


CONTROVERSY. 


26J5 


But however the Reformers may have quarreled about their doc- 
trines, they are unanimous in their testimony, as to the retrograde 
movement of public and private morals, immediately subsequent to 
what they called the ‘preaching of the Gospel.’ Bucer’s evidence 
accords exactly with that of Luther. ‘The greater part of the peo- 
ple,’ says he, ‘seem only to have embraced the Gospel, in order to 
shake off the yoke of discipline, and the obligation of fasting, pen- 
ance, &c. which lay upon them in the time of Popery? and to live at 
their pleasure, enjoying their lust, and lawless appetites without con- 
trol. They therefore lend a willing ear to the doctrine that we are 
justified by faith alone, and not by good works, having no relish for 
them.’ (Bucer de regn. Christ. L. i. c. 4.) Calvin’s testimony is to 
the same effect. ‘Of so many thousands,’ says he, ‘seemingly eager 
in embracing the Gospel, how few have since amended their lives 
Nay, to what else does the greater part pretend, except by shaking 
off the heavy yoke of superstition, to launch out more freely, into 
every kind of lasciviousness.’ (Calv. l.vi. de scand.) 

These testimonies, Rev. Sir, coming from such witnesses, will con- 
vince you that the morals of the people, (the low condition of which 
you have set forth as a plea for the insubordination of those spiritual 
chieftains,) instead of being improved, became absolutely deteriorated 
by their walking in the footsteps of the change; and that tlje effect 
of the Reformation, was as Dr. Chalmers declares, ‘to reform men in- 
to vice.’ 

Returning then, to the extravagant supposition, which for the pres- 
ent 1 shall not dispute with you, viz: that the gates of hell had pre- 
vailed against the church of Christ, contrary to his promise: that she 
had ceased to be ‘the pillar and ground of the truth,’ as described by 
St. Paul; — and viewing the impiety of the Reformers’ doctrine, on 
the usefulness of good works; the absence of free will in man,— the 
fatalism in all things, by predestination; — viewing the character 
which they themselves give of each other, — the bitterness of their 
language,— the coarseness of their mutual denunciations; the crimes 
and 5 corruptions of the doctrines of Christ, reciprocally imputed; 
viewing, in a word, the concordance of their testimony, as to the in- 
creasing depravity of morals which distinguished those who follow- 
ed in the wake of the ‘Gospel;’ ask yourself whether the religion of 
that undefineable compound called the ‘Reformation’ can be the re- 
ligion of Christ. Is there any resemblance between the doctrines 
of the one, and the blasphemies of the other? Between the Apos- 
tles of the one, and the inventors or revivers of the other? Between 
the moral effects of the one, and the progressive immorality of the 
other? Reflect, I pray you, on all this, and remembering that an in- 
fallible judge will review all our judgments, ask yourself, whether 
such doctrines, originated by such men, and followed by such con- 
sequences, are ‘the religion of Jesus Christ.’ 

‘The religion of the Reformation’ teaches that there are two sacra- 
ments, according to the Calvinists; and it teaches also, that there are 
no sacraments, according to the Quakers. I t teaches that infant bap- 
tism is sufficient, according to the Presbyterians; and that infant 
33 


264 


CONTROVERSY. 


baptism is not sufficient, according to the Baptists — ‘He that be- 
lieveth, and is baptized shall be saved. 5 It teaches that there is a 
real distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, according to the 
Episcopolians; it teaches that there is no such distinction, according 
to the Westminister Confession of Faith. It teaches that there is 
a hell for the wicked, according to the Methodists; it teaches that 
there is no hell according to the Universalist. It teaches that Christ 
is corporeally present in the Eucharist, according to Luther; it teach- 
es that there is no such presence, according to Calvin; whilst, to the 
believers in the thirty-nine articles and the book of Common Prayer, 
it teaches that Christ is, at the same time, both absent and present. 
Christis ‘verily and indeed’ received in the coramnnion; although the 
communion is, ‘verily and indeed,’ nothing but bread and wine ! It 
teaches that Christis God, according to the Episcopalians; it teach- 
es that Christ is God, according to the Socinians. It teaches that 
there are a trinity of persons in the Godhead, according to the Bap- 
tists; it teaches that there is no trinity of persons in the Godhead, 
according to the Universalists. It teaches that the father alone is 
God, according to the Unitarians; it teaches that the father is not 
God, according to the Swedenborgians; that the Son alone, Christ, is 
God. All this ‘the religion of the Reformation’ teaches; and you 
have unwittingly pledged yourself to the public, to prove that ‘the 
religion of the Reformation,’ is ‘the religion of Christ.’ Now, Rev. 
Sir, will you not find it rather difficult to prove that ‘the religion of 
Christ,’ teaches all this r 

It is mere sophistry, to assert that the Protestant religion ‘is as old 
as the Bible.’ The Turk may say, with equal propriety, that his re- 
ligion is as old as God himself. But the main question is, did the 
Protestant religion exist before Luther? If you say it did, then 
please to inform us of the time when, of the village, where; and the 
name of at least one individual, by whom it was professed. This is 
the touchstone of truth, which will test your assertion. I bespeak the 
attention of our readers to the answer which you will give to this 
question. In the meantime I venture to predict that you will evade 
it; but let us not anticipate. 

Again, it is well known, that the doctrine of Jesus Christ incul- 
cates subordination to authority. This doctrine is eloquently put 
forth by Presbyterians themselves, whenever they wish to tame a dis- 
orderly brother in their own communion. And whenever he refuses 
submission, this authority strips him of all the ministerial and pasto- 
ral power with which it had invested him. Thus it is with the Rev. 
Mr. Irvin of London, at this moment; because forsooth, like a consist- 
ent Protestant, he wished to take his religion from ‘the Bible alone.’ 
Thus Luther had received his mission and ordination from the Catho- 
lic churh, on the understanding that he should exercise his pastorship 
in communion with the church, and according to her doctrines. If 
the pastors of the Catholic church then, were not true pastors, it fol- 
lows that the Christian ministry was extinct. Are you prepared for 
this alternative? But if they were the true and legitimate pastors, 
then Luther in the first instance presented himself as a rebel against 
the injunction of Christ, and a disturber of that spiritual order, which 


CONTROVERSY. 


265 


Christ had established. lie trampled on the vows of his ordination 
— he violated the solemnity of his promise — he became an apostate 
and a traitor. If Luther’s case were true of a Presbyterian parson, 
instead of a Catholic monk, how w-ell the General Assembly, ‘that 
highest judicatory of the church,’ would know how to pass a just de- 
cision upon it. 

But Luther was, at the period of his revolt, like Irvin, stript of all 
the spiritual authority he nad received from the Catholic church. — * 
Now will you please to tell us, from what source, he derived those 
spiritual powers, by virtue of which he undertook to reform the church, 
which had excommunicated him? How came he to arrogate to him- 
self, the title of ‘the Ecclesiastics of Wittemburg?’ Whence did he 
derive his new authority after his excommunication ? Was it from 
the Landgrave of Hesse, to whom he granted the privilege of having- 
two wives at once, whereas he himself was satisfied with only one ? 
Was it from Melancthon, the Professor of Greek? Or from the po- 
pulace, whom his gross invective, and fiery declamation roused into 
madness and fury against the whole church? In a word, from whom 
did he receive his authority? And if he received no authority, by 
what right did he put forth hie sacrilegious hand, to stay the ark of the 
living God, with which Jesus Christ promised, himself, to abide, ‘all 
days even to the end of time?’ Whence did he receive his new au- 
thority? From a new Revelation ? So, indeed, he asserts. But, at 
the same time, he informs us that the angel of this Revelation was 
no other than the devil himself, with whom he frequently disputed, 
and whom he describes as a first-rate logician and an elegant Latin 
scholar. But the question still returns, from whom did Luther de- 
rive his authority ? He had been unfrocked by the Catholic church, 
from whom, l repeat, did he derive the new garment of authority? — 
Will you have the goodness. Rev. Sir, to answer this question. When 
Moses revealed the Jewish religion, he showed his authority. When 
Christ revealed the Christian religion l*e showed his authority. But 
when Luther revealed the Protestant religion he showed no authori- 
ty; judging probably with Mohamet, that the world was no longer 
worthy of miracles. The ways of God Rev. Sir, and the conduct of 
men are almost equally mysterious. The people were incredulous 
both in reference to Moses and to Christ, with all their miraculous 
proof of divine authority; and they hearkened to Luther and his re- 
forming followers, without requiring that even a particle of primitive 
or subsequent authority should be exhibited ! It is true, indeed, that 
to be saved by faith alone, was a reformation of religion, well calcu- 
lated to make converts. The soul could rise to heaven, much more 
rapidly, when borns on the wings of faith alone, than when its flight, 
(as beforo the Reformation,) was wont to be retarded by the super- 
stition of good works. But the question is, whence did Luther de- 
rive his authority ? Until you are pleased ,Rev. Sir, to answer this all 
important interrogatory, I feel warranted in maintaining, that Luther, 
and Calvin and their associates, during that epoch of ecclesiastical 
anarchy, and religious phrenzy, which has been mantled into a de- 
cent appearance at least by the word ‘Reformation,’ had not a parti- 
cle of authority from either God or men. They were mere laymen 


CONTROVERSY. 


266 

in this respect; and their successors in the ministry, are not, and can- 
not be substantially any thing more. Still I am not bigotted in this; 
I will give it up, if you can show that Luther, or Calvin, or Socinus, 
or anyj of the others, received any subsequent authority, to supply 
the absence of that which they forfeited in their excommunication 
from the Catholic church. The proof of this authority is all I re- 
quire. 

But even then, how will you account for their denouncing each 
other as corrupters of the doctrine of Christ? Their doctrines, if 
they told the truth; were all ‘exclusively derived from and consis- 
tent with the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as the only 
infallible rule of faith and practice;’ and this, according to your de- 
finition, proves them to have been the doctrines of Christ. Then, 
why did they denounce each other? Why did each deny the doc- 
trines of the other, as the doctrines, not of Christ, but of the devil? 

Nor is even this all. How did they derive those doctrines? It 
certainly, was not by the Catholic rule of faith, which for certain 
causes, known to themselves, they had renounced. Neither was it 
by the Protestant rule of faith; for this, you yourself, Rev. Sir, have 
recently told us, ‘is the word of God, contained in the Bible;’ of 
which private interpretation you also assure us, constitutes‘the abuses 
alone.’ Now, the religion of the Reformation was derived from the 
Bible or it was not. If it was not, then according to Protestants it 
must be false. But if it was, then according to your own showing, 
you are indebted for your religion to ‘the abuse of the Bible.’ And 
is it this monstrous offspring of ‘abuse’ which you say is the religion 
of Christ? Your own words, Rev. Sir, contend against you, and hem 
you in a difficulty, from which you cannot escape, until you deny or 
disown them. 

Again, touching what are called ‘orthodox’ tenets among Protes- 
tants, I have to observe that they are all found in the Catholic Church. 
These doctrines always existed in the Church and the Reformers in 
going out from the Church carried them forth, although on subse- 
quent examination, as it appears, many of them cannot be discovered 
in the Bible, and they have consequently been protested against, as 
the remnants of Catholic superstition. The doctrine of the Trinity, 
of the Incarnation and Divinity of the Son of God; the doctrine of 
Original Sin, and the Atonement through the death of Christ; these 
were, and are the doctrines of the Catholic Church, But the denial 
and rejection of these dogmas was ‘the religion of the reformation.’ 
It is the Protestant religion which has discarded them, and you must 
vindicate the rejection of them, in order to prove that ‘the Protestant 
religion’ is ‘the religion of Christ.’ 

You perceive, Rev. Sir, that 1 allow you in this argument all the 
advantages you can desire; the whole benefit of the Protestant hypo- 
thesis, viz: that Christ was unfaithful to his promises, nnd allowed 
the church to fall into the errors against which the children of the 
Reformation have protested. This will save you the trouble of prov- 
ing any thing against the church, by allowing you to take the conclu- 
sion, for granted. And now to simplify the matter, let me put the 


CONTROVERSY. 


26 r 


arguments of this letter, in the form of a few questions bearing di- 
rectly on the subject. 

1st Question. Did there ever exista society of Christians (previous 
to the Reformation,) agreeing in doctrines with any sect of Protes- 
tants? In other words, were there Lutherans before Luther? So- 
cinians, before Socinus? Calvinists, before Calvin? or Episcopalians 
(in the Protestant sense,) before Henry VIII.? Yes, or no. 

2d Question. Taking the Reformers as they have been described 
by themselves, is it clear that they were the men, whom God have 
selected to purify his church? Yes or no. 

3d Question. Does the ‘religion of Christ’ teach the doctrines ot 
Protestantism, from the highest point of Episcopalianism, down the 
descending scale to the farthest verge of Unitarianism? — if not, the 
Protestant religion, is not the religion of Christ. Yes, or no. 

4th Question. Had Luther, Calvin, Socinus and their associates in 
reforming the church, and re-establishing the supposed religion of 
Christ, any lawful ministerial authority — derived in any regular way 
from either God, or men? Yes, or no. 

5th Question. If they had not, was it in their power to impart any 
ministerial authority to their successors — the present clergy (so 
called) of the Protestant religion? Yes, or no. 

Now, Rev. Sir, if you believe the Protestant religion to be the re- 
ligion of Christ, you will give me a plain, categorical answer to these 
five questions. Come up to them boldly; — answer them candidly, 
‘Yes, or no;’ and then support your answer by such authority, evi- 
dence, and argument as truth can always command. In supporting 
whatever answer you may give successively to each of them, you 
will have an opportunity of reviewing all the preceding arguments 
and authorities of this letter. What I have said of the Reformers, I 
have said on their own proper testimony, and I premise this observa- 
tion, least you should charge me with a wish to calumniate them. I 
have no such a wish towards any man living or dead. 

The closing words of your last are these: ‘I hope in your next to 
see manly arguments in a Christian spirit, and a cessation of that 
low and vulgar warfare which must speedily weary the patient and 
kind readers of our letters.’ The advice, Rev. Sir, is a good one; 
but whether the rebuke was merited by myself, or expected from you, 
I shall not presume to say. I have tried in this letter to furnish you 
with solid and substanstial ‘arguments;’ and to show you that I am 
not disposed to be ‘unchristian,’ ‘low,’ or ‘vulgar,’ I shall conclude 
this letter by a quotation which breathes the soul of Christian char- 
ity, and which you will not prize the less, because it is the chastened 
and beautiful production of a female pen. It is taken from the let- 
ter of Miss Pitt, (relative of the English minister,) upon her conver- 
sion to Catholicity. ‘As to the Protestants, who may obtain infor- 
mation of it, I do not consider myself calculated to instruct them, 
much less to convert them; but I conjure them, as my brethren, 
whose salvation is most dear to me, to follow one piece of advice; 
which is, not to reject, without the most serious examination, the 
doubts which must be originated in their minds, if they think delib- 
erately upon it; by the novelty of their belief, and its variations since 


268 


CONTROVERSY. 


the Reformation, compared with the antiquity and unity of the Cath- 
olic doctrine, for the true faith must be one, and must necessarily be 
traced to the Apostles and to Jesus Christ. May it please God to 
enlighten them, as he has deigned to enlighten me, in order to draw 
me from the errors in which my birth ana education had unfortunate- 
ly engaged me.’ Yours, &c. 


John Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY. No. XXIII. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF 

CHRIST? 

Philadelphia, July 11, 1833. 

To the Rev. John Hughes, 

Sir, — Whatever, in your fond fancy, or more honest fears, has 
been gained or lost, in the present controversy, one thing is certain, 
that the Bible does not teach the religion of Rome. With a redun- 
dant frequency and zeal you have told us that the Bible may be 
made to teach Unitarianism, while we cannot prove the Trinity from 
it; that Universalism, and Swedenborgianism, and in fact, any and 
every system may be supported by the Bible. In order to teach 
Popery however, you own that you are compelled to resort to author- 
itative interpretation, which shall require all to think alike, right or 
wrong. This is Deism; barefaced Deism. It abandons the Bible, 
as not being a sufficient and infallible revelation orf divine truth; and 
it proceeds upon the plan of forcing a meaning to an unmeaning 
book, and then of enforcing that meaning on an unthinking multi- 
tude. If the Bible however ini the hands of men, teaches any thing 
but your system, why then your cause is given up by you. Well did 
Eckius tell the Elector of Bavaria that the doctrines of the Roman 
church could be proved from the Fathers, but not from the Bible! 
This was honest and true. Protestants on the other hand hold that 
the Bible has a fixed meaning; that no authority can alter that mean- 
ing; that it is absurd to say that authority can give it a sense, which, 
otherwise it has not; and that it is an insult to its author, to say that 
he has so revealed himself, and his will, that his word may mean any 
thing, and every thing, unless interpreted by the church of Rome. 
As 1 have often told you, the Bible is the Protestant rule of faith; and 
honest, common-sense interpretation the way to ascertain the true 
sense of that rule. If men misinterpret it, as you do, and as many 
calling themselves Protestants do, this is the abuse of the rule, and 
of reason; it is not the rule, and of reason; it is not the rule, or the 
defect ot the rule; but of those who abuse the rule. This is the def- 
inition given, and advocated by me from the first; and having failed 
to defend your rule, or disprove in the least degree the divine char- 
acter of the true rule, you finally charge the defects of your argu- 
ments, on alleged changes in my definition. By so doing you virtual- 
ly abandon your previous positions; and to this I trace your sudden 
consent to pass from the question without ever bringing your rule of 
faith to view; though we were discussing the general subject for five 
months. I hope therefore the intelligent reader will observe that as 
Mr. Hughes has not yet either produced, or defended when I have 


CONTROVERSY* 


m 

produced, several of the leading features of his rule of faith, (as the 
Apochryphal books, the unanimous consent of the fathers, and un- 
written traditions,) he is hardly a fit person to define our rule. And 
I am perfectly willing to leave his suppression of his own rule, and 
his charge of change on mine, as proof and even confession, that his 
cannot be defended, nor ours weakened by him. 

The expressive silence which you observe in your last letter tells 
but too plainly both your policy and your straits. On the first ques- 
tion, viz: the rule of faith, you pursued the same course. In your 
second letter you said, ‘at a proper time, I shall defend the Catholic 
rule with positive arguments;’ and again, in the same letter, ‘when 
the time shall come, however, I bind myself to prove that several of 
the former (my authorities) are spurious, and several of the latter 
(my propositions) are false.’ But let any reader refer to the long 
list of these propositions, spread out at large in my first letter, and 
see whether this pledge has ever been redeemed. You flew at the 
authorities, and cried out for references; but after all your struggles 
the authorities still stand. As to the propositions, the 2d, 3d, 4th, 
5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th, stand untouched; and the promised ‘strong 
arguments’ linger like Sisera, ‘when his mother looked out at a win- 
dow, and cried through the lattice, why is his chariot so long in com- 
ing?’ (Judges v. 28 .) 

And now on the 2d great question, your plan is still the same. 
For the chief part of three letters, I have advanced upon this ques- 
tion — your reply is silence, as to all that I have said, with the good 
old promise, to save us from despair, viz: ‘That question being dis- 
posed of, I shall allow you to take up any doctrine of the church, and 
I shall hold myself prepared to refute all the arguments you shall 
bring against it.’ And so after going over all the ground of Protes- 
tantism in perfect silence, and leaving the Papacy reposing in securi- 
ty and state, some three or four years hence, (not sooner, if you spend 
the proportion of time on each topic as on the rule of faith) you will 
answer my arguments against ‘the doctrine of the church!’ But sir, 
the country has never fully seen the mysteries of your system; and 
are curious to behold them; and I design with the help of "God now to 
do my part towards bringing them to view. As you say, so it is ad- 
mitted, that ‘I am to defend the Protestant faith:’ and as this is the 
true and natural, as well as just order of discussion, I will proceed 
as 1 have begun, promising, iike yourself, but in much shorter time, to 
meet all your objections and attacks. If this line of argument dis- 
pleases, you have the option of a connected and more enlarged dis- 
cussion of the whole subject, or of a public oral discussion by which 
in a few successive days the entire ground may be traversed. Each 
has often been tendered to you. The latter you have prudently de- 
clined. The former I am now preparing for the press as opportunity 
is allowed me. 

To proceed, then. In my last three letters I have proved, on Ro- 
man Catholic authority, viz: of prelates, popes, and councils, that a 
reformation in morals, worship and doctrine was necessary before, 
and at the time of Luther's appearing. 


CONTROVERSY. 


m 

1 have also showed (upon testimony which you have wisely left un- 
touched) that your canon of Scripture corrupted the religion of 
Christ at the fountain head: that the doctrine of the Pope’s supre- 
macy is a wicked, and anti-christian usurpation, oppressing men, and 
rebelling against God, by a lawless monarchy; and that the doctrine 
of Indulgences, against the express testimony of the Bible, gives to 
Popes and others the power to pardon sin, adds creature-merits to the 
infinite merits of Jesus Christ, and assumes the impious right to sell 
for money the gifts, and grace of God. 

I also prove that the canon of Scripture used by the church of 
Home, the Pope’s supremacy, Transubstantiation, and depriving the 
Laity of the cup in .the Lord’s Supper, where innovations unknown 
for ages after the resurrection of Christ. Of course it follows that 
the church guilty of these anti-christian innovations, has so far, cor- 
rupted the religion of Christ. 

[.In prosecution of the plan thus begun, I pass to expose the doc- 
trine of Transubstantiation. In my last letter I proved that it was 
not promoted into a doctrine, as yourScotus affirms, until A.. D. 1215! 
Surely then it is not an ancient doctrine; yet is it taught in your 
church ‘that novelties are subversive of Christianity, and that those 
who teach them must fall under the divine anathema, and are of the 
school of Satan !’ 

The doctrine according to the Council of Trent is this: ‘That by 
the consecration of the bread and wine there is effected a conversion 
of the whole substance, the bread into the substance of the body 
of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the 
substance of his blood. .Which conversion is fitly and properly 
termed by the Iloly Catholic Church, Transubstantiation:’ Sess. 13. 
C. 3. and Can. 1. ‘If any one shall deny that the most holy sacra- 
ment of the eucharist, there are contained, truly, really and substan- 
tially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our 
Lord Jesus Christ; or say that he is in it only as a sign or figure, or 
by his influence, let him be. accursed.’. 

The following shocking and humiliating extract from the Missal, 
which is the authorized book of the church for the celebration of 
masses, will show how the consecrated bread is regarded. It is one 
of many such things. *lf the priest vomit the Eucharist and the spe- 
cies appear entire, they must reverendly be swallowed again, unless 
nausia prevent it; if so let the consecrated species be cautiously se- 
parated, and put in some holy place, until they be corrupted, and then 
let them be cast into holy ground; but if the species do not appear, 
the vomit must be burned, and the ashes thrown into holy ground.’— 
(Missale De. Def. in cel. Mass, occ.) 

Now can any one in his senses need proof that this doctrine 
and this illustration, are contrary to the word of God ? You say it is 
deduced from the institution of the supper, .where our Lord said of 
the bread, ‘this is my body.’ But so it is said ‘that rock was Christ.’ 
1 Cor. x. 4. Is this literal ? John x. 9. and xv. 1. Christ says ‘I am 
the door,’ I am the true vine.’ Heb. xii. 29. ‘Our God is a consuming 
fire.’ Num. xiv. 9. The spies said on their return to the camp ‘the 
people of the land are bread for us.’ Is this all figure ? or all fact? 


CONTROVERSY. 


272 

for they stand or fall together. Isaiah xl. 6. says ‘all flesh is grass.’ — 
Peter explains this, 1 Peter i. 24. ‘All flesh is as grass.’ Indeed I 
remember that you said in No. 7, ‘Just lend me the Protestant rule of 
faith for a few minutes, and I will prove from Scripture that it is right 
to call the Pope God. You are gods. 1 have appointed thee god of 
Pharaoh.’ P.71.6. Exodus vii. 1.’ Such was your language when 
figure was convenient. To seethe unscriptural character of this 
doctrine, you have only to look at 1 Cor. x. 16. and also xi. 26-29. 
where the element of bread is called bread after consecration, ‘As 
oft as ye eat this bread,’ &c.;and where by another figure the cup is 
put for the wine, ‘as oft as ye drink this cup;’ and according to your 
doctrine the wine which was first made the real blood of Christ, is 
then transmuted into a real cup; and then this cup is changed into the 
New Testament! We are referred for proof of Transubstantiation 
to John vi. 53, ‘Except ve eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink 
his blood, you have no life in you.’ But it is most clear that this can- 
not mean transubstantiation. 1. For in verse3 32-3, he tells us this 
bread came down from heaven; but his natural body was born on 
earth. 2. Whoever eats this bread has eternal life. But do all that 
take the eucharist, have eternal life ? 3. Whoever eats not this liv- 
ing bread Averse 53 , ) is forever lost — but surely some are saved who 
never received the sacrament. 4. As you deprive the people of the 
cup, so if this means the Eucharist and Transubstantiation, you de- 
stroy all their souls, for it says ‘except ye drink his blood ye have no 
life in you.’ 5. To drink the blood of Christ at that time or at the in- 
stitution was impossible — for it was not then shed; and if it be as you 
say, then Christ drank his own blood, and eat his own flesh! 6. In 
this same chapter Christ tells us that is a fignre, and has a spiritual 
meaning; v. 63. ‘The words that I speak unto you they are spirit, and 
they are life.’ 

1 have already produced the admission of Bellarmine and the tes- 
timony of Scotus (see last letter) against this doctrine. Cardinal 
Cajetan (Notes on Aquinan p. 3. p. 75. Art. 1, &c.) says, ‘The other 
point which the gospel has not expounded, expressly, that is the 
change of the bread into the body of Christ, we have received from 
the church*’ Here is the church against the gospel ! Again: ‘There 
appears nothing in the gospel to compel any man to understand these 
words, this is my body, in a proper sense. Nay, that presence (of 
Christ) which the church holdeth, cannot be proved, unless the decla- 
ration of the church be added.’ Bishop Fisher, also Vasquez, Al- 
phonsus de Castro, Erasmus, Durand, Melchior, Cene, &c. &c. all of 
your church, not to mention others, bear the same testimony. By or- 
der of Pope Pius V. the above concession of Cajetan was expunged 
from the Roman edition of his works ! Such is the testimony of Scrip- 
ture and your own writers, against a doctrine which we are cursed by 
your church for rejecting. 

But this doctrine invades the testimony of the senses. If it be 
true, that the bread by consecration becomes ‘substantially the body 
and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus 
Christ,’ and yet appears bread, and retains all the qualities of bread, 
then am I ever to believe my senses again ? I see, and handle, and 


CONTROVERSY. 


srs 

eat the bread— a little piece of wafer, and yet you tell us that a few 
words by a priest have made it the body, soul, and divinity of Christ? 
If the properties of one substance may become those of another, and 
utterly different substance, and yet those properties remain, then 1 
can be certain of no substance; nor of any thing I see, feel, taste or 
touch ? If transubstantiation is true, Christianity may be false — for 
the evidence of miracle appeals to, and rests on the testimony of the 
senses. As for example, after Christ rose from the dead, he said to 
his disciples, (Luke xxiv. 39,) ‘Handle me and see, for a spirit hath no 
flesh and bones, as ye see me have.’ Now this was appealing to their 
senses, that he was not a disembodied ‘spirit,’ fas they feared ) but 
had a real body.’ Here the proof rested on the testimony of the 
senses. But the senses tell us the bread is bread, blessed, or not 
blessed. But if it be the real body of Christ, then they deceive us 
in this important case, and they may have deceived the disciples of 
the Lord’s resurrection: and then all miracles are vain, and Christi- 
anity which rests on them is vain; and David Hume is right in resolv- 
ing all religion and all nature into illusions and ideas. And is there 
any thing more abhorrent than to suppose that a priest can make his 
God, by uttering a few words? And when he has thus made a wafer 
of senseless matter into the soul and divinity, as well as body of 
Jesus Christ, what becomes of them after the wafer is eaten? Does 
the wafer become our creator, possessed of the attributes, and capa- 
ble of the acts of God? ' And does that wafer ever cease to be God 
after once becoming so? No doctrine of your. church is more stren- 
uously and exclusively pressed; none with less evidence, or greater 
absurdity; and nothing has more contributed to degrade the Christian 
religion, and make men infidels. There was more of wisdom than of 
Christian honesty in the confession of Mr. Cressy when he said, T 
have not learned to answer such arguments, but to despise them.’— 
Cicero says, ‘When we call the fruits of the earth Ceres, and the 
wine Bacchus, we use but the common language — but do you think 
any man so mad as to believe that which he eats to be God ?’ (De 
nat. Deornum b. 3.) Yet in that very Rome, where a wise heathen 
thus spoke, the infallible head of the church does this very thing — 
Amazing indeed ! 

Averroes, an Arabian philosopher, who lived after this doctrine was 
invented, says, ‘I have travelled over the world, and have found di- 
vers sects — but so sottish a sect, or law', I never found as is the sect of 
the Christians; because with their own teeth they devour the God 
whom they worship.’ 

Such is the testimony of Scripture, and of your own writers, of 
reason, and of the senses, against this cardinal doctrine of the church 
of Rome. Is it not a glaring novelty ? Is it not most corrupt and 
anti-christian ? 

2. This doctrine leads directly to another equally novel, and cor- 
rupt, (for errors come in a chain, one drawing after another,) viz: the 
sacrifice of the Mass. In chap. I. of the Council of Trent, on the 
institution of the sacrifice of the Mass, we are told that ‘our Lord, in 
the last supper on the night in whioh he was betrayed, declared him 
self to be constituted a priest for ever after the order of Mo c: 


574 


CONTROVERSY. 


—offered his blood and body to God the Father, under the species of 
bread and wine, and by these symbols delivered the same to be re- 
ceived by his Apostles whom he then appointed priests of the New 
Testament, and commanded them and their successors in the Priest- 
hood to offer the same, saying, ‘this do in commemoration of me. — - 
Luke xxii. 19. chap. 2. ‘And since the same Christ who once offered 
himself by his blood, on the altar of the cross, is contained in this di- 
vine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass and offered without 
blood, the holy Council teaches that this is really propitiatory, and 
made by Christ himself.’ 

‘We therefore confess that the sacrifice of the Mass is one and the 
same sacrifice, with that of the cross; the victim is one and the same 

Christ Jesus and the oblation of the cross is daily renewed in 

the Eucharistic sacrifice. ..... .The priest also is the same Christ 

our Lord.’ (Catechism, Coun. Trent, on the Eucharist.) 

Such are the infallible decrees, &c. on this awful profanation, for I 
cannot truly call it by a better name. The substance is this, that eve- 
ry priest has power to turn bread and wine, by uttering a few words, 
into the real Lord Jesus, the Son of Mary, and the Son of God, who 
is now enthroned in Heaven; and that having thus made his Maker, 
he offers him up to God as an atoning sacrifice for the living and the 
dead, who are in Purgatory ! 

Now is this less than crucifying to themselves t!\e Son of God afresh, 
which Paul tells us, (Heb. vi. 6.) is putting Him to an open shame ? Is 
it not written (Heb. ix. 24-28.) expressly, ‘that Christ did not offer 
himself often, as the High Priest entereth into the holy place every 
year, with blood of others, for then must He often have suffered since 
the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world 
hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself; and as 
it is appointed unto men once to die, but after that the judgment, so 
Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.’ ‘For such a high 
priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sin- 
ners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not delay, as 
those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then 
for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.’-— 
(Heb. vii. 26-27.) ‘And every priest standeth daily ministering, and 
offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away 
sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever 
sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his 
enemies be made his footstool.’ (Hebrews x. 11-13.) The repetition 
then of the sacrifice, if it were possible, by the priest’s hands, would 
be anti-christian and absurd. Is not this most express; that daily sac- 
rifices were not needed or designed; that this was to be done but once; 
and that He was to do it; not frail priests ? And having done it once, 
He forever sat down at God’s right hand, to die no more ? 

Again, fin Hebrews, chap. ix. v. 22,) it is expressly said ‘without 
shedding blood is no remission.’ But Christ had not shed hs blood, 
at the last supper; and ‘the vain oblation’ of the Mass, is called a 
bloodless sacrifice; yet in the extracts given above, your church says 
the Mass is a real propitiatory sacrifice. Query. Does Christ now 
suffer when he is sacrificed in the Mass? It is said, ‘that it is the 


CONTROVERSY. 


275 


same Christ, who is the victim, in the oblation of the Mass, as in the 
oblation on the cross.’ If he suffer not, he is not a victim; to say he 
suffers now is blasphemy. Let any man compare the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, especially the ten first chapters, with the decrees of the 
Council of Trent, and he will see at every step, the Gospel tortured; 
the order of things turned backward; the Pope and his priesthood ca- 
ricatured into a Levitical household; Christ degraded; his death dis- 
honoured, his worship polluted, men exalted to gods, and God reduc- 
ed to the creature of men’s hands, and then alternately worshipped, 
offered up, and consumed by those who made him. 

One dreadful feature in this system is the profance power it puts 
into the Priest’s hands. The transubstantiation depends on the con- 
secration of the Priest; and if ‘his intention’ be wanting, then there is 
no real sacrament, and the poor people are all deceived, they idola- 
trously worship the bread and wine, and the sacrifice is lost. But 
supposing the true intention and proper forms, the priest offers up the 
Christ he has made, ‘as a true propitiatory sacrifice for the living and 
the dead.’ He does all that Christ need do for the poor sinner. To 
him he confesses his sins, from him he receives absolution, and he of- 
fers up the victim even Christ, and by his sacrificing act, the pardon 
of the sinner is secured. Hence masses abound. Hence preaching, 
pastoral visitation, studying the Bible, all things are secondary to the 
Mass, and to celebrate it, (as a certain distinguished priest recently 
told an astonished friend of minej is the chief lousiness of the priest. 

Add to this these masses are sold for money. I gave a specimen 
from the churches in Madrid in my last. ‘In the Laity’s directory,’ 
1830, p. 22. 31. Those who contribute to the erection of a chapel are 
assured ‘that every Sunday, prayers shall be offered up for them pub- 
licly, and that a mass will be said every year within the octave of 
saints for the repose of their souls after death:’ and ‘four masses in 
each month are regularly offered for the benefactors (subscribers for a 
particular fund) living and dead:’ i . e. Christ is sacrificed thirty-six 
times annually in these masses, in return for their money! I have 
before me at this moment the form of constitution of a ‘Purgatorial 
Society’ in Dublin, A. D. 1815. The 2 2d rule is as follows: ‘Every 
person wishing to contribute to the relief of the suffering souls in 
purgatory shall pay one penny per week, which shall be appropriated 
towards procuring masses, to be offered for the repose of the souls of 
the parents and relations of the subscribers to the institution, and all 
the faithful' departed in general.’ 

The 3d chap, of Dec. Conn. Trent is hegded,‘Of Masses in honour 
of the Saints.’ That is, Christ is offered up, in honour of his sinful 
creatures ! Thus the Missal (the Roman Directory containing mass- 
es for the various days and occasions, and sanctioned by Popes and 
used every where) under the title of ‘the feast of St. Peter’s chair in 
which he first sat at Rome,’ has these prayers: ‘May the intercession 
of thy blessed Apostle Peter, we beseech thee, O Lord, render the 
prayers and oblations of thy church acceptable to thee, that what we 
celebrate ('the masses,) for his glory ('pro illius gloria,) may prevail for 
the pardon of our sins.’ Again, ‘Sanctify, 0 Lord, the offerings of 
thy people by the prayers of thy Apostle Paul, that what is accepta- 


2r« 


CONTROVERSY. 


ble to Thee, because by Thee instituted, may become still more ac- 
ceptable by his intercession.’ Here is the authorised Directory for 
your church worship; and the prayer it prescribes is that ‘the offerings 
of the people,’ that is, Christ sacrificed in the mass, offered up in hon- 
our of Peter, and Paul, may be made more acceptable, by the prayers 
of these creatures! Is this Christianity? Is it less than blasphemy? 
Yet this is authorised infallible Popery. Is it wrong then to protest 
against it? Was not silence a sinful connivance, protestation a pub- 
lic duty, reformation a universal right? It is a remarkable fact that 
the Council of Trent, as if conscious of its anti-christian character, 
does not attempt to found this doctrine on the word of God, but rests 
it on the authority jof the church ! 

3. The worship of the host (which arises out of the former errors) 
is unscriptural, and grossly idolatrous. 

The decree of the Council of Trent (Session 13. chap. 5. and can- 
on 6.) are to the following effect, viz: ‘There is therefore no room to 
doubt, but that the faithful of Christ should adore his most holy sacra- 
ment with that highest worship due to the true God, according to the 
constant usage in the Catholic Church. Nor is it the less to be ador- 
ed, that it was instituted by Christ our Lord as has been stated,’ 
(that is to be eaten.) 

Again, ‘whoever shall affirm, that Christ the only begtotten Son of 
God, is not to be adored in the holy eucharist with the external signs 
of that worshp which is due to God; and therefore that the eucharist 
is not to be honoured with extraordinary festive celebration, nor so- 
lemnly carried about in processions, according to the laudable and 
universal rites and custom of the Holy Church, nor publicly present- 
ed to the people for their adoration; and that those who worship the 
same are idolaters: let him be accursed ’ It is w ell for Protestants, 
that this curse is harmless, for that it is idolatry, the very language of 
the decree directly evinces. In our own country there is too much 
light to bear the public elevation, and ambulatory show of the Host. 
It is confined to the altars and ailesof the church. But in Italy, and 
in Spain ‘this tremendous mystery,’ as some Romanist calls it, is often 
carried in public processions, and every man must kneel or be knock- 
ed down, as_ the Host .moves by. In the above quotation the authori- 
ty and practice of the church are again (as usual) substituted to the 
word of God, and the law of Christ. As to ‘usage of the church’ 
what have we to do do with that, when it practices gross idolatry ?— . 
Besides this usage is of comparatively modern date. The doctrine 
Transubstantiation was not made fas we have said,) an article of faith 
until theyear 1215 — so say Soptus, Tonstal, and others; and of course 
before that, the bread was not worshipped. And in the Roman Can- 
on Law it is written that Pope Honorius III. in the following year di- 
rected that the priests, at a certain part of the service, should elevate 
the host, and cause the people to prostrate themselves and adore. — 
Soon after this, he directed the words ‘Hie Deum adora’ — here adore 
God, — to be inscribed on the doors of those places in which the host 
was received for the sick. 

As toother charges of idolatry, some denial or explanation is en- 
tered up. But here it is avowed, and a curse leveled at those who 


CONTROVERSY. 


377 

decline it, or condemn it. If the bread be not God, then it is con- 
fessedly idolatry. But the council of Trent decreed (Sess. 7. can. 
1 1.) that the intention of the priest is necessary to a true sacrament, 
and the Missal, says ‘if a priest should not intend to consecrate but 
to deceive, there is no sacrament.’ But it is certain that in the in- 
numerable millions of masses said, priests often lack the intention. 
Then in such a case there is gross idolatry, for as it is owned that in 
such case the bread remains unchanged, so those who worship it are 
idolaters. But who can be certain of the intention of a priest, es- 
pecially when so many of them have been, and are among the most 
abandoned, and irreligious of men? Bellarmine (if he has not lost 
his orthodoxy with you) tells us ‘no man can be certain with the cer- 
tainty of faith that he receives a true sacrament; because it depends 
on the minister’s intention to consecrate it: and none can see anoth- 
er’s intention.’ (Book 3. chap. 8. on Justification.) 

The Missal mentions no less than ten heads, and under those no 
less than fifty particulars, in which defects may occur. But when- 
ever such defect occurs, (and who can be certain it does not on any 
given occasion?) the worship of the bread is CvuiCSocdly id cl n try? 
As for Scripture authority for this worship, there is not one word. 
But the church is residuary legatee of all power, and settles all ques- 
tions at Rome now, as the sword of Brennus did in a former age. 
Vasquez (on 1 Cor. 28,) says ‘the power of the Apostles to give com- 
mandments, has not been greater than that of the church and the 
Popes.’ Gabriel Biel (Can. Mass.) ‘Priests hafe great power over 

the one, and the other body of Christ He who made me has, if I 

may say it, given me power to create him; and he that made me is 
made by my means.’ And sec. 4th. ‘Christ is incarnate, and made 
flesh, in the hands of Priests, as in the Virgin’s womb....Priests do 
create their creator and have power over the body of Christ. I will 
not, as I might, multiply these shocking profanities. But here is the 
seat of the power, to make the bread divine, and of the authority to 
require it to be adored. And now is it anti-christian to protest 
against such abominations? 

4. Purgatory is a fiction of the Church of Rome, having no foun- 
dation in the word of God, and ruinous to the souls of men. 

In the decree of the Council of Trent on Purgatory (sess. 25,) it 
is written — ‘That there is a purgatory; and that the souls detained 
there are assisted by the suffrages of the faithful, but especially by 
the acceptable sacrifice of the mass; this holy council commands all 
bishops diligently to endeavour that the wholesome doctrine of pur- 
gatory delivered to us by venerable fathers and holy councils, be be- 
lieved and held by Christ’s faithfnl, and every where taught and 
preached.’ The creed also contains the following article: ‘I con- 
stantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained 
therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.’ The catechism 
of the Council of Trent also teaches, (Part 1st. ch. 6) ‘That the 
souls of the pious, who have departed this life, not fully cleansed, 
and having somewhat yet to pay, make full satisfaction through the 
fire of Purgatory.’ 


278 


CONTROVERSY. 


Bellarmine heads his third general controversy, with this extraor- 
dinary title: ‘Of the church which is in Purgatory’!! in his first 
book, 1st chapter, onthesame subject he says, ‘Purgatory is a certain 
place in which, as in a prison, after this life, the souls which have 
not been fully cleansed on earth, are purified; so that thus they may 
be certainly prepared for heaven, where nothing that defiles shall en- 
ter.’ Such is the summary of a doctrine so profitable to the priests, 
and so ruinous to the people! Bishop Fisher of your church says: 
(In Confnt. Luth. Art. 18 ) ‘Many are tempted now a days, not to 
rely much on Indulgences; for this consideration, that the use of 
them appears to be new and very lately known among Christians: 
To which I answer. It is not very certain who was the first author 
of them: the doctrine of Purgatory was a long time unknown, was 
rarely if at all heard of among the ancients, and to this day the 
Greeks believe it not; nor was the belief of either Purgatory, or In- 
dulgences, so necessary in the Primitive church, as it is now; so long 
as men were unconcerned about Purgatory, nobody inquired after In- 
dulgences.’ The Greeks, to whom the above extract refers, say in 
their apology to the Council of Basil, (De Igne Purgatorio,) ‘we own 
no Purgatory-fire; we have received no such thing; nor doth our Eas- 
tern church confess it.’ And, again: ‘For these causes, the doctrine 
proposed, of a Purgatory- fire, is to be rejected and cast out of the 
church, as that which tends to slacken the endeavors of the diligent 
and which hinders them from doing their utmost to be purged in this 
life, since another Purgatory is expected after it.’ Otho Frising, an 
old Roman Catholic Bishop and historian, cotemporary with St. 
Bernard, tell us, ‘the doctrine of Purgatory was first built upon the 
credit of those fabulous dialogues, attributed to Gregory 1st, about 
the year 600.’ Uofiensis, and Pollidore Virgil, inform us, that this 
docirine was not believed by the early Greek Fathers, and that it 
was but lately known by the church as a doctrine. The earliest 
Latin Fathers also, were strangers to this innovation; and it may 
with confidence be asserted, that for 500 years after the death of 
Christ not one of them can be named who held, throughout, this ar- 
ticle of faith, as now professed by the church of Rome. This doc- 
trine, besides being a novelty, is directly contradictory to the word of 
God. It supposes that the satisfaction of Jesus Christ does not pro- 
cure a full remission of sins, either before we die, or perhaps long af- 
ter: it supposes that a creature, and he sinful, can make a meritorious 
satisfaction to God for his sins by suffering, and thus mend the 
imperfect satisfaction of Christ: it supposes that God pardons men, 
and yet punishes them afterwards: it holds that God punishes the 
same sins twice, viz: in the death of his Son and then in Purgatory: 
that Be applies pardon by punishment, and remits our debts by mak- 
ing us pay them: that there is a distinction between sins venial and 
sins mortal, i. e. that some sins are trivial, and only some deserve 
eternal punishment: it supposes that God forgives our greater sins 
freely, and yet punishes us for our lesser: it relies also upon this, 
that ‘God requires of us a full exchange of penances and satisfac- 
tions, which must regularly be paid here or hereafter, even by those 
who are pardoned Jjere, which if it be true, we are all undone:’ it ad- 


CONTROVERSY. 


2?6 

puts that a priest’s mass on earth will relieve a soul from purgatory, 
when Christ’s intercession in heaven will not: it supposes ages per- 
haps of suffering after death, by those who are the children of God, 
and not guilty in his sight: in a word, it is the parent of indulgences, 
makes the Church a mart where sin, and heaven, and hell, the blood of 
Jesus, and the souls of men are suspended on the will of a priest, 
and commuted formoney,so that the principal calamity,and crime, is 
to be poor. Now, not one of these suppositions is accordant with 
the word of God; but all directly opposed to it, as the following 
Scriptures sufficiently show. Rom. viii. 1 . ‘There is therefore, now 
no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.’ 1. John i. 7. 
9. ‘The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.’ 
‘If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, 
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’ Rev. xiv. 13. ‘I heard 
a voice from heaven saying write, blessed are the dead that die in the 
Lord from henceforth, yea saith the Spirit that they may rest from 
their labours.’ Picherellus, one of your doctors of the Sorbonne, 
confesses that ‘St. John, by this last mentioned Scripture, hath put 
out forever the fire of Purgatory.’ And again, ‘There is no fuel in 
Scripture, either to kindle or maintain the fire of Purgatory.’ (In 
Massa.) Matthew v. 22. ‘Whosoever shall say unto his brother, 
thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.’ There is no such thing as 
a little sin mentioned in all the word of God! See also Heb. i. 3. 
Matt. x. 8. Rom. iii. 24, and viii. 32. Colos. ii. 13. 2 Cor. v. 1. 8. 
Isaiah Ivii. 1. Luke xvi. 22. Jesus said, even to the thief upon the 
cross, ‘this day shalt thou be with me in paradise;’ and he says to all 
men every where. (John v. 24.) ‘He that believeth my word and 
believeto on him that sent me, hath everlasting life and shall not come 
into judgment, but hath passed from death unto life.’ On the other 
hand he hath also said, (John viii. 21.) ‘I go my way and ye shall 
seek me, and shall die in your sins; whither I go ye cannot come.’ 
As to the passage in Matthew xii. 32. Bellarmine owns that ‘Pur- 
gatory cannot by any rule of logic be proved from it, as the sin there 
mentioned was never to be purged, being damnable.’ Maldonat ac- 
knowledges that ‘Purgatory cannot be proved from Matth. v. 25, 26, 
as the prison there spokerrof is Hell and not Purgatory .’. Peter de 
Soto allows, ‘it cannot be proved from 1 Cor. iii. 15, as it is not per- 
sons but vain doctrines called wood, hay, stubble, which some well 
meaning but mistaken teachers add to the true, that shall in the day 
of judgment be tried by fire and be burned, and themselves shall 
hardly 5 escape, even as one escapeth out of the fire.’ This novel and 
unchristian doctrine, as the Greek Protestants quoted above, justly 
intimate, relaxes the efforts of men in fleeing from the wrath to 
come, and criminally holds forth the vain hope that their future suf- 
ferings will have an end. You have often, alluded in your letters to 
the doctrine of the Universalists; arid I agree with you in thinking 
them unscriptural, and destructive. But for all practical purposes, 
in delnding and destroying mens’ souls, the doctrine of Purgatory 
is equally efficacious: it is even less consistent; and from the extent 
of your communion (though a profitable fable to the priesthood in 
this world,) it spreads a far wider ruin than the other doctrine. 

34 


230 


CONTROVERSY. 


Against this dreadful doctrine, enthroned as it is in the standards of 
jour church, and hedged about with terrible anathemas, we protest 
and pronounce it incapable of defence. 

Here then are four other cardinal doctrines of the church of 
Rome, which, if the Bible contains the Christian religion, are as un- 
like to Christianity as they are to the Koran, and are far more like 
the religion of heathen Rome than that of Jesus Christ. 

My two previous letters remain unanswered, and very much un- 
noticed by you. This of course is the 3d in the series. By this 
time it must be seen by all, that you feel the saf^.y of Romanism to 
lie in its seclusion from the public eye. If after attacking the Pro- 
testant rule of faith, and withholding your own, you can manage to 
attack the Protestant religion also, so as, to withhold your own, we 
must concede to you the palm of adroitness at least, especially when 
you also manage to appear the person standing on the defensive 
against the attacks of a disputant who has challenged you. Honesty 
however is the best policy, and as I met your attack on our rule of 
faith, so will I even in anticipation of tne time, meet your attacks 
on the Protestant religion, for I plainly perceive that you are not 
disposed to meet me in discussing the peculiarities of Romanism. 
The following passage, which you tell us incloses a grand dilemma, 
is noted chiefly to gratify yourself. ‘In my last letter I reduced the 
the question to the simplicity of a dilemma, from which I defy you 
to escape. It is this: Either the Protestant religion is a religion dif- 
fering from the religion of Christ; and by this admission you give up 
the question; or else, the religion of Christ was not professed by any 
society of Christians previous to the time of Luther. And in that 
case tne religion of Christ is only three hundred years old! To 
which of these alternatives do you wish to cling? for one of them is 
inevitable. To this argument, you oppose the ‘defence 5 of silence. 
Not a word of authority, not a word of reasoning! Silence only, 
prudent silence.’ Now I must beg pardon for passing it by before; 
but like the ‘pathetic part’ of the young advocate’s speech, of which 
he gave, the jury notice, when coming to it. I should never have 
known it, if you had not told me that it was a dilemma. Our re- 
ion existed so long before the days of Luther as the Bible existed. 
It Is distinctly taught by the early Christians, Martyrs and Confes- 
of the first three centuries; it is recorded clearly in the earliest 
-- Is down to the days of Athanasius; it was taught and defended 
3 earliest councils; it was established in the first ages in Jerusa- 
- id other parts of Palestine; in Asia, Greece, Egypt, and Rome 
f; it was afterwards corrupted by that san^e church of Rome: 
d we have ‘left the rust and kept the metal.’ The Reformation is 
• the errors, not the true religion. You have left Christ, not we. 
e have been driven from and left you, not Christ: the Reformation 
is subsequent to the errors it reforms, otherwise it were not a refor- 
mation but an unchristian change. Sound Christianity was primi- 
tive* to it we return. If any honest inquirer taking the natural 
sense of language (and can your authority justly give any other 
sense?) will examine the word of God, and all these various' early 
documents to which we refer, and compare them with the Pro- 


CONTROVERSY* 


581 


testant religion properly so called, he will find it in all its simplicity 
and fulness therein recorded. But if on the other hand, you choose 
to ascend, we can show you our religion ‘professed by societies of 
Christians’ long before the days of Luther. The Magdeburg Cen- 
turiators, Vol.3. Cent. 12. chapter 8. tell us of a people whom your 
church in vain sought to destroy, professing such articles of faith as 
these. ‘The Sacraments of the church of Christ are two, Baptism 
and the Supper of the Lord: Masses are impious, and it is madness 
to say them for the dead: Purgatory is an invention of men: the in- 
vocation and worshipping of dead saints is idolatry, the Pope has 
not the primacy over all the churches of Christ, neither has he the 
power of both the swords: Vows of celibacy are inventions of men 
and occasions of Sodomy: the marriage of Priests is both lawful and 
necessary, the reading and knowledge of the holy Scriptures is open 
to all, commemorations of the dead, pilgrimages, &c. are diabolical 
inventions.’ See also two ‘confessions of their faith’ furnished by 
John Paul Perrin; see also Reinerius Sacco, andiEneus Sylvius, Cla- 
dius Siesselius, all Papal writers in proof of the Protestant doctrines 
of the Waldenses, ages before Luther. Reinerius this writes: ‘A- 
mong the sects (he says) which still are, or have been, there is not 
any more pernicious to the church, than that of toe Leonists (Wal- 
denses J and this for three reasons, the first is because their opposition 
has been of very long continuance. Add to which that this sect has 
become very general; for there is scarcely a country to be found in 
which this heresy is not planted. And, in the third place, because 
while all other sects beget in people a dread and horror of them on 
account of their blasphemies against God, this, on tdie contrary, hath 
a °reat appearance of godliness; for they live righteously before men, 
believe rightly concerning God in every particular, holding all the 
articles contained in the (Apostles’) creed, but hating and reviling 
the church of Rome, and on this subject they are readily believed by 
the people.’ (Reinerius contra Waldenses in Perrin, b. 2. ch. L) 
Thuanus the historian, book 6, bears the same testimony to the Pro- 
testant doctrines of the Waldenses. So also Mazery says of these 
heretics, ‘avoient apeu pres mesmes opiniones que ceux qu’ on nomme 
au jourd’ huy Calvinistes.’ ‘They had almost the same opinions as 
those who are now called Calvinists.’ Let it be remembered that 
these are Roman Catholic Historians. Again, the Greek church 
which you own to bean ancient church, also protests against your 
half-communion. Purgatory, merits (human) supereiogation, worship 
of images, concealing the Scripture in an unknown tongue, extreme 
unction, sale of masses, and infallibility. The ancient Arminian 
church, rejects the Supremacy of the Pope, Transubstautiation, and 
Purgatory, and excommunicates those who worship images. The 
Jacobites, the Syrian, the Egyptian, and Abyssinian Christians also 
reject nearly all the Romish errors against which we protest. 

How plain it is then from these testimonies, that the Protestant 
religion was professed, not only ages before the days of Luther, but 
existed from the beginning, and descended for centuries even in your 
own church, until she corrupted it and made it an vnti- Christian Pa- 
pacy. The dilemma then reverts to you, and that on your* own prin- 


382 


CONTROVERSY. 


ciples. Either the Roman Catholic religion differs from the religion 
of Christ (and by this admission you give up the question) or else the 
religion ot Christ did uot exist for many centuries after the death of 
its author. 

So much for your dilemma. Now the posture of the question be- 
tween us is this. Here is the Bible; you and I differ as to the best 
mode of finding out what it means; but we both agree that its mean- 
ing, when gotten at, is God’s will and truth, and therefore consonant 
to the religion of Christ. We have for some time been discussing 
the best means for finding out its contents; but surely it is easy to 
say what are the doctrines which we actually have deduced from that 
book. This discussion relates to those doctrines. Now the Church 
of Rome deduces certain doctrines; Protestants also, certain doc- 
trines; the question is not how, but what are they? In some points 
we agree. This you admit in your last letter when you say Touch- 
ing vvhat are called ‘orthodox’ tenets among Protestants, I have to 
observe that they are all found in the Catholic Church. These, doc- 
trines always existed in the church, and the Reformers in going out 
from the church, carried them forth, etc.’ Then it follows that they 
are our doctrines and yours, and as to them there is no dispute. So 
far therefore as tlie agreed points go, if your church is the church of 
Christ, So is the Protestant church. 

Now as to disputed points against which we protest, you hold that 
they also are a part of the religion of Christ. These disputed ten- 
ets, I stated at large in my definition of the Protestant religion; and 
I have .exposed many of them in this and in former letters. Since 
their you hold these disputed points to be part of the religion of 
Christ, it is your business to prove that they are so. If I have not 
stated : themto suit you, tell us what they are, and having stated, 
prove them. This you entirely decline to do, and shrinking from it, 
undertake to prove a negative, viz.: that the Protestant religion is not 
the religion of, Christ. While you cling to this absurdity, and shrink 
from the lair aqd mauly meeting of the question, your cause is aban- 
doned. 

Again, according to tiie^tate of the question, you must go further 
and show that these disputed tenets are such essential parts of the 
religion ef Christ, that not to hold them is to unchurch us. Until 
you have done this, no reason appears why we may not hold the re- 
ligion of Christ, and yet reject them. T his is so incumbent upon 
you in the discussion of this question, that until you have done it, 
you may abuse the : Reformers andTaud the Papacy without measure, 
and yet no demonstration is given that the Protestant religion is not 
the religion of Christ. 

Stili further, if these disputed points are so essential, that if true 
we must hold them before we can be a church of Christ, for our reli- 
gion .be His religion;,) then, on the other hand, it follows, that if false 
they are so essential that all who hold them are truly unchurched, and 
their religion is not the religion of Christ. This reasoning is not on- 
ly conclusive, but it is so by your own showing. It follows, there- 
lore, not only that ours is a true church and our religion the religion 
of Christ, but f Mr. Hughes being judge ) ours is the only time church 


CONTROVERSY: 


283 


and religion, unless you can prove these exclusive points. How 
strangely then must you appear to the community of readers, when 
time after time you refuse to touch these disputed points, and leaving 
the only ground upon which the question can be settled, rove through 
declamatory pages, and garble extracts from the writings of the Re- 
formers, in order to prove a negative. Let me still further illustrate 
this subject. Take the doctrine of human merits, or the worship of 
the Host, or the doctrine of purgatory, or any of the leading points 
upon which we differ. These points are so fundamental, that you de- 
nounce us as heretics for rejecting them; and we protest against you 
as anti-christian for holding them. In so far as we agree with you, 
ours is the religion of Christ if yours is, by our holding the agreed 
points; but if your church be wrong in those fundamental points which 
we reject, then ours is a true church, and yours is not; whereas if we 
are right in holding what your church rejects, then still ours is a true 
church and yours is not. If, therefore, you will not come up to the 
discussion of the points on which we differ, and on which the ques- 
tion turns, I must pursue the line of my argument as already begun, 
and the tenets in which you are interested, must be considered inca- 
pable of defence. 

Your first question, viz: ‘Did there ever exist a society of Chris- 
tians (previous to the Reformation,) agreeing in doctrines with any 
sect of Protestants ?’ has been answered at large in this letter, in my 
exposure of your fanciful dilemma. As you ask however, ‘a catego- 
rical answer,’ to your dogmatic questions, I answer without hesita- 
tion, Yes. When, however, you include Socinus among Protestants, 
I refer you for answer to Simon Magus the father of Papal Simony 
and Indulgences. His system revived in your church, was one of the 
articles of reformation. For the parantage of celibacy, I refer you 
to the Manichees: for the worship of the Virgin Mary, I remind you 
of the Collyridian idolators from whom (see Epiphanius) it is deriv- 
ed by your church. 

‘2d Question. Take the Reformers as they have been described by 
themselves, is it clear that they were the men whom God would have 
selected to purify hi3 church?’ 

Answer. From the caricature which you have given, in clipped ex- 
tracts, of their character and doctrine, no just conception can be 
formed of the one or the other. This shall be shown to your own 
confusion, and in part even in the present letter; Rut allowing them 
to have been all that your injustice has ascribed to them, I ask, if they 
were unfit men to reform, what were the Popes to sustain a religion? 
Let us take a glance at the thirteenth schism which disgraced the 
Papacy in the days of Formosus and Sergius. Formosus, A. 1). 890, 
gained the Pontificate by bribery. Sergius his rival was expelled by 
royal power. Stephen, the successor of Formosus, unearthed the 
dead body of Formosus, had a mock trial of him, and having cut off 
his head and fingers threw his body into the Tyber, and declared all 
his acts and ordinations invalid. The Romans soon after expelled 
Stephen from their Hierarchy. Baronius tells us that he entered like 
a thief, and died by the rope. Bruys says he was as ignorant as he 
was wicked. In the nineteenth schism Benedict, Sylvester, and John, 


284 


CONTlieVBIlSY. 


reigned in one filthy triumvirate at the same time. (Who then was 
Pope?) They occupied in Rome St. Mary’s, the Vatican, aud the 
Lateran. Binius Vil. 221, and Labbeus II, 1180, called them ‘a 
three headed monster rising from the gates of Hell infesting in a 
most woful manner the most Holy chair of Peter.’ Triceps bestia 
ab inferorum portis emergens sanctissimam Petri Cathedrum miscrl- 
me infestavit. A clever link, this, in the sacred and unbroken chain 
of Pontificial succession! The great western, or twenty-ninth schism 
which lasted for fifty years, broke to atoms the Pontifical succession, 
and exhibited to an astonished world, a holy war for half a century, 
amidst a band of ruffians, calling themselves the vicegerents of the 
Prince of Peace. I need not dwell here, nor point you again to the 
fifty Popes called by your historian ‘apostate rather than apostolical.’ 
But this brief sketch may suffice to show that the Reformers, howe- 
ver bad, were at least as well fitted to reform, as such popes to head 
and sustain a religion. 

Again, we never set up these Reformers as the vicegerents of God, 
but only as leaders in Reform to which every Christian is in his mea- 
sure not only competent, but also bound by his duty to God and to the 
church. For such a work miracles are not required. Such a work 
was often accomplished in the Old Testament church, of which it is 
written, ‘now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, 
and without a teaching Priest aud without law.’ 2 Chron. xv. 3. 

‘Question 3d. Does the religion of Christ teach the doctrines of 
Protestantism, from the highest point of Episcopalianism, down the 
descending scale to the farthest verge of Unitarianism ? if not, the 
Protestant religion is not the religion of Christ.’ 

Answer. You have unwittingly, but satisfactorily, answered this 
question forme, when you say in your last letter, ‘touching what are 
called orthodox tenets among Protestants, I have to observe that they 
are all found in the Catholic church.’ Unitarianism, Universalism, 
&c. are not found in the Bible, and therefore make no part of the 
Protestant religion, ‘which is exclusively derived from and consistent 
with the word of God.’ Ours is not a religion of ‘opinions,’ as you 
mean by the word, (which however is an absurd and unphilosophical 
use of it,) but of evangelical doctrine. Our Bible does not teach any 
thing, and every thing, though you say it does out of your hands; and 
those who unite with you in saying that it does, are with you, defam- 
ers of the Bible, and as to truth, heretics. You are hardly a stran- 
ger to the innumerable sects which have arisen up in your church. — • 
The Pope once signed the Arian Creed and the body of the church 
followed him. There is not a heresy of modern times that did not 
exist before the Reformation; in the days of Epiphanius they had in- 
creased to eighty, and in the time of Philaster to one hundred and 
fifty. Flagellism, Convulsonianism, and the Festival of the Ass, I 
must hereafter introduce to your notice. I now assert, and shall 
hereafter prove, that no church on earth has had so many variations 
in doctrine, and so many heresies in its bosom, as the church of Rome. 

Your 4th question regards the Reformers’ ministerial authority, and 
vour 5th the transmission of that authority. 1 here answer in a word, 
that whatever authority your church possessed in this way was im* 


CONTROVERSY. 


•m 


parted to them; so that theirs is the same: and their abundant reasons 
for reform, and for separating from jour church, when she refused a 
Reformation, fully justify them in disregarding her deposition; and 
render their ‘unfrocked’ fas you are pleased to call \t t ) as vain as the 
authors of it were corrupt. 

I close the present letter (too long already,) by exposing as a spe- 
cimen of your quotation, the very adventurous and self-convicting 
way in which you have tortured the writings of Luther. Your first 
and second citations, do not appear after some search, in the places to 
which you refer. (I hope for your own sake you have not depended 
upon some of the slanderous excerpts of the Jesuits.,) The third you 
thus give: ‘Let this be your rule in interpreting the Scriptures; when- 
ever they command a good work, do you understand that they forbid 
it; — and you say, ‘is this the religion of Christ? Oh, what a task you 
have undertaken !’ In die previous paragraphs, Luther had been re- 
commending the performance of good works without relying on the 
merit of them, with great zeal, clearness and force, as the fruit of 
faith, and to the glory of God; and says they should be gratuitous, 
abundant and spontaneous. He next proceeds to show what goods 
works truly are That I may do you no injustice, I will give the ori- 
ginal latin and the translation in parallel columns, and show in ital- 
ics how your garbled extract come in. 


“Opera vere bona.” 

Qui isto modo bona operantur, non 
sibi, sed Deo, tanquem instrumentu 
Dei, operantur, nihil in his sibi arro- 
gant, solo Dei contenti, in quo spe- 
rant; qui non sic operantur, simice suut 
sunctorum virornm . Adeo necesse est 
superstitionem fieri ex omnium sanc- 
torum vita, nisi Patrem coelestem in his 
didicerint glorificare. Recte. ergo di- 
citur. ‘Universal vise Domni miseri- 
cordia et veritas;’ id est, tunc opera 
fieri bona, quando Ipse solus totus ac 
totaliter eafacitin nobis, utoperis nul- 
la pars ad nos pertineat. Qnare hie 
tibi sit canon , ubi scriptura prcecepit bo - 
nium opus fieri , sic intelliga *, quod pro • 
hibeat te favere bonum opus, cum id 
non possis sed, nt Sabbatum, Deo sanc- 
tifices, mortuus sit et sepultus, sinas- 
que Deum in te operare At hoc au- 
tem non pervenies unquam, nisi per 
fiem, spem et caritatem, id est per tui 
mortificationem et omnium operum tu- 
orem. Operatio in Psalmum V. Opera. 
Zorn. Ill fol. 171 . 


“ Work s truly good.” 

Those who perform good works in 
this manner w^rk not to themselves, 
but to God, and as instruments of God, 
not arrogating any thing to themselves 
but ascribing all to God, in whom they 
trust. Those who do not perform 
good works in this manner, are but 
the apes of holy men: so that the un- 
avoidable consequence is, that super- 
stition will be produced in the fives of 
holy men, unless they in these things 
glorify their Father in heaven. It is 
therefore rightly said, “all the ways of 
the Lord are mercy and truth;’ that is, 
good works may then be said to be 
performed, when He alone, totally and 
entirely works them in us, so that no 
part of the work belongs to ourselves. 
Wherefore let this be your rule , -when the 
Scripture commands a good -work to be 
done, you are not to understend it a* 
prohibiting too from doing the good 
i work , since you are not a b lb to per- 
form it, but that you sanctify a rest to 
God, and become as dead and buried, 
and permit God to work in you. But 
to this you will never come unless by 
faith, hope and charity — that is by the 
mortification of self, and of all your 
own works. 


I suppose you remember my allusion (on the extract you made 
from Tertullian m this same style) to the man who proved from the 


28<5 


CONTROVERSY. 


Bible that there was no God, by dropping half the verse ! So here 
the half verse makes Luther talk like a libertine as to morals, and a 
fool as to interpretation, while the whole passage is designed to re- 
commend good works, to purify them by grace, to derive them from 
God, to destroy self, and glorify God by active obedience, and morti- 
fication ! strange ! strange liberties ! With such a pair of scales we 
can weigh the characters given to the Reformers by you; and see how 
much they gain when as you say, you give their opinions in their own 
words. Yours, &c. 

John Breckinridge. 


CONTROVERSY. No. XXV. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF 
CHRIST? 

Philadelphia, July 19, 1833. 

To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 

Rev- Sir, — The question is about ‘the Protestant Religion,’ and 
not about Transubstantiation or Purgatory. But I foresaw, and even 
predicted, that you would evade the subject at issue. You had re- 
peatedly told us, that you had demolished the doctrines of the Eucha- 
rist, Purgatory, Indigences, &c. &c. &c. and if so, why did you 
waste five columns of your last letter in doing what you had so fre- 
quently and so effectually done before ? If you betray such want of 
confidence in your own assertions, you must not be surprised at the 
jocund incredulity with which they are received by your readers. 

In my last letter I gave you what you had previously called for-7- 
‘manly arguments;’ couched in genteel language, except perhaps the 
quotations from the writings of the ‘Reformers,’ for which I must de- 
cline all responsibility. How have you met these arguments? You 
have not met them at all. No man, Catholic or Protestant, liberal or 
even bigoted, will say that your last letter is, or deserves to be call- 
ed, an answer to mine. You had undertaken to prove that ‘the Pro- 
testant Religion is the Religion of Christ;’ and, knowing that you 
would respect the witnesses, I gave you the testimony oftne Reform- 
ers themselves, to prove that it is not. I gave their doctrines, by 
which they set forth that man has not free will, but is a mere machine; 
and that God is an omnipotent tyrant, condemning his creatures for 
violating precepts, which he knew in imposing them could not be ac- 
complished ? And all this, as they taught, according to the Bible ? I 
gave you their characters, as drawn by themselves, and if they spoke 
the truth, it wmuld be difficult to find materials for a darker picture. 
I gave in their own words, the immoral effects of the Reformation; 
and to all these things there is no reply. I confronted the defender 
of the Reformation, with its authors; and apparently surprised that 
such evidence should have been derived from such a quarter, the 
confession of the clients seems to have chained the tongue of the ad- 
vocate. Still he has written a letter, called it No. XXIV. and under 
the heading of the ‘Protestant Religion,’ he has given, at considera- 
ble length, his ‘views,’ on the Catholic doctrines of the Eucharist, and 
Purgatory ! ! He had disproved these doctrines several times, if he 
can believe himself ; and in order to strengthening his faith,'! had even 
indulged him with the concession for argument’s sake, that so it was: 

35 


386. 


CONTftOVEttST. 


but it seems he would believe neither of us; and behold, he is demo- 
lishing transubstantiation again ! Who will say after this, that Pro- 
testants do not believe in works of supererogation? And then the 
conclusiveness of his logic! ‘Transubstantiation, says he, is as 
young as 121#,’ therefore, the religion of the Reformation, (viz: all 
the sects of Protestantism) is the Religion of Christ.’ Mahomedism 
is wrong, therefore, according to this new species of logic, Presbyte- 
rianism is right. 

But pray, Rev. Sir, did you place so low an estimate on the intelli- 
gence of our Protestant readers, as to suppose that the dullest vision 
would not see through all this ? Do you imagine that their confidence 
in the divinity of your religion will stand unshaken, when they see 
their minister — after having bound himself by a written agreement, 
to show ‘that the Protestant Religion is the Religion of Christ.’ — 
flinching from the task he had assumed, and returning to his ‘labour 
of love,’ in aspersing doctrines which do not belong to the Protestant 
Religion ? You could not, nor can you now, give me a definition of 
the Protestant Religion. But after having taken six months for re- 
flection, you come out with the discovery that it is ‘the Religion of the 
Reformation ! !’ As I had promised to ‘respect’ your definition I pro- 
ceeded to the fountain head; and detailed the result of the investiga- 
tion in my last letter. It seems to have taken you by surprise; and 
your silence as to the facts and authorities, sufficiently indicates that 
even you were unacquainted with 1 he whole truth, as respects the 
doctrines and authorities of the Religion of the Reformation. They 
agreed in rebellion, but in nothing else. Each accused the other of 
receiving his doctrines by the inspiration of the Devil. Luther ac- 
knowledges that from this tutor, he first learned the arguments for 
the overthrow of the sacrifice of Mass. But still he admitted the real 
presence of Christ in Eucharist; this Calvin denied; wielding against 
the Eucharist those arguments and objections, of which your last let- 
ter is but the feeble echo ! Calvin’s successors found, that by apply- 
ing the same kind of interpretation, they could get rid of all the 
other mysteries of Revelation, and for the credit of their philosophy, 
the children have completed the work of desolation which the father 
had begun. 

In the commencement of your letter you charge me with having 
maintained, in this discussion, principles injurious to the holy Scrip- 
tures. And after having invented for me a set of consequences 
which I disclaim, you go so far as to say, ‘this is Deism, barefaced 
Deism.’ I am certain there is not another man in the community, 
besides yourself, that can discover Deism in the principles which I 
have supported during this controversy. I have indeed, shown that 
Deism necessarily flows from the principles of Protestantism. The 
very last definition you give of the Protestant rule of faith, is preg- 
nant with that consequence. You say ‘the Bible is the rule; and com- 
mon-sense interpretation the way to find the sense of the rule.’ 

Your ‘common-sense interpretation,’ tells you, that transubstanti&tion 
is absurd and impossible — another’s ‘common -sense interpretation’ 
tells him that the incarnation and the deity of Christ are absurd and 
impossible — a third man’s ‘common-sense interpretation,’ tells him 


CONTROVERSY 


389 


that the book itself is a book of contradiction, as plainly appears by 
the contradictory ‘common-sense interpretations’ which Protestants 
give of it, and that therefore, revelation is absurd and impossible. — 
Thus it is, that starting from a false first principle, reason evolves 
consequences, one from another, until having begun with ‘the Protest- 
ant rule of faith’ it terminates with ‘Deism, barefaced Deism.’ I 
merely pointed out these consequences by showing that Protestant- 
ism is essentially inconsistent in itself, and with all the principles 
which usually govern the human mind. 

You deny that you had changed your definition the Protestant 
rule of faith. Did you not say in our agreement that it was ‘infalli- 
ble ?’ Did you not in your very first letter defend ‘private interpre- 
tation’ as a part of ‘this infallible’ rule ? Did you not in letter No. 
18, give it up, as an ‘abuse ?’ Did I not congratulate you on this sen- 
sible but ‘unexpected 5 concession ? And in letter No. 20, did you not 
take up the word with a note of admiration ‘Unexpected! Strange 
language at the close of a discussion, when in the first column of my 
first letter five months ago, I gave this definition of our rule of faith, 
viz: The word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testaments.’ You then charge me with having ‘evaded’ the 
real Protestant rule, and ‘argued against its abuses alone.’ What are 
these ‘abuses,’ but private interpretation ? And yet, it is the very 
key you put into the hands of every man, woman and child whereby 
to unlock the meaning of the Scriptures — ‘honest common-sense in- 
terpretation is, you tell us, the way to ascertain the true sense of the 
rule.’ It seems that Unitarians and Universalists and Swedenbor- 
gians are not Protestants. And why? Because says Mr. Breckin- 
ridge, although they have the ‘real Protestant rule,’ yet they have not 
‘honesty and common sense,’ of the Quakers, Baptists, Methodists, 
Episcopalians, and Shakers of Lebanon, &c. &c.? You are all pro- 
vided with the ‘real Protestant rule of faith.’ But which of these 
denominations is so happy as to possess ‘honesty and common-sense’ 
for the right interpretation of the real rule ? 

The mysteries of Revelation have always been subjects of scoffing 
to the sceptic. If the real presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist 
were the only mystery, then, indeed, Mr. Breckinridge might do with 
the infidel, by arranging it at the tribunal of ‘common-sense.’ The 
language of your first notice of this doctrine. Rev. Sir, brought you, 
as you may recollect, into such sympathetic harmony of reasoning 
with the infidel Yolney, that one would suppose you had both studied 
theology in the same school. But since then, it seems you have dis- 
covered a secret, which proves that,in philosophy at least, you have 
ii decided superiority over the author of ‘Ruins.’ The old puzzle 
about ‘the essence of matter,’ is solved at last. Formerly it was con- 
sidered that the senses judge only of appearances, and accordingly 
it was believed, that by the power of God, the body and blood of 
Christ might exist under the appearance of bread and wine. You, 
however, have found out that the properties and appearances of a 
thino-, and the substance of which it is composed, are the same, and 
thatthe senses determine both. Of course you do not believe that 
the ’tongues of fir*’ which rested on the apostles were any thing 


29 ® 


CONTROVERSY. 


more than tongues of fire. You do not believe that the ‘dove’ which 
descended on the Redeemer at his baptism in the Jordan could beany 
thing more than a dove, which happened to be passing that way. — 
It seems that rationalism is not confined to the ministers of Germa- 
ny and of Geneva. The Unitarians and Deists, Rev. Sir, will make 
a whip of your logic. 

Speaking of the mode in which certain Protestant controversialists 
treat the doctrine of the ‘real presence,’ Mr. Stanley Faber, author of 
the ‘Difficulties of Romanism,’ remarks, ‘While arguing on this sub- 
ject, some persons, I regret to say, have been far too copious in the 
use of those unseemingly terms, impossibility and absurdity. To 
such language, says he, the least objection is its reprehensible want of 
good manners. The doctrine of transubstantiation, like the doctrine 
of the trinity, is I contend, a question not of abstract reasoning, but 
of pure evidence.’ 

It was on the supposed overthrow of the eucharist, that Socinus 
calculated on the destruction of the Trinity. Having shown, like 
you, Rev. Sir, that the doctrine of the eucharist is the grossest idola- 
try, he goes on to say, ‘So also we hope that the shocking fictions 
concerning God and his Christ, which at present are supposed to be 
sacred and worthy of the deepest reverence, and to constitute the 
principle mysteries of our religion, will, with God’s permission, be so 
laid open and treated with such scorn that every one will be asham- 
ed to embrace them or even pay any attention to them.’ (Tom. 1.) 

There is another book, which I shall not mention, in which your ar- 
guments or rather cavils against the mystery of the eucharist, are 
brought out in still bolder relief, as applied to the trinity. ‘But when, 
(says the impious author,) according to the Christian trinitarian 
scheme one part of God is represented by a dying man, another part 
called the Holy Ghost, by a flying pigeon, it is impossible that belief 
can attach to such wild conceits,’ Such are the consequences of your 
unhappy reasoning ? 

Thus, Rev. Sir, you perceive that the weapons with which Calvin 
and his associates combated the real presence of Christ, in the myste- 
ry of the eucharist, have passed from hand to hand until they are 
now wielded by the Deist, against the mystery of the Holy Trinity 
itself. Now please, in mercy to that Christianity, of which you pro- 
fess to bt a minister, review your argument drawn from reason and 
the ‘testimony of the senses;’ and instead of borrowing wisdom from 
Pagans, for the explanation of the Christian mysteries, ask your own 
reflection whether t|ie objection is not equally strong against the ‘real 
presence’ of the Holy Ghost under the ‘appearance’ of a Dove, or of 
‘fiery tongues ?’ Infidelity, be assured, is already making rapid strides, 
and you should leave to hands less sacred than your own, the task of 
furnishing her with implements of destruction against Christianity. 
The doctrine of the eucharist, believed by the vast majority of Chris- 
tians, at the present day; believed by all the generations of the church 
previous to Luther, and so frequently inculcated in the Holy Scrip- 
tures of the New Testament, is entitled to, at least, reverential no- 
tice. Your manifest ignorance of the doctrine and of its evidences, 
I shall expose in due season. 


CONTROVERSY. 


291 


When you charitably insinuate, that masses are sustained by the 
love of money in the Priesthood, you certainly cannot expect to ob- 
tain credit for the sincerity of your charge. If we were wicked 
enough to have our consciences for sale, we are at least learned enough 
to know that a higher price may be obtained in the Protestant market. 
We would embrace the Reformation, share in the spoils of the Bible 
and other societies, and stand our chance for ‘a call,’ to two thousand 
a year, as well as the best of you. It is true we are priests and ‘we 
have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the taber- 
nacle,’ or belong to the Reformation; and it is true that ‘to offer sacri- 
fice,’ is the chief official business of the priest. But still he does not 
neglect the other pastoral duties. He preaches, exhorts, encourages, 
consoles the distressed, and whenever he has money or bread, he di- 
vides with the orphans who have neither. He instructs the children 
in their religious and moral duties, he attends at the bedside of the 
sick and the dying, and inhales the corrupted atmosphere of pesti- 
lence, whilst his happier brethren of the Reformation are enjoyingthe 
bliss of domestic and connubial felicity, and laughing at his round of 
popish superstition. Still, it is true as your ‘astonished friend’ has in- 
formed you, that the celebration of the sacrifice of mass is the chief 
business of the Priest. 

Might I be permitted to ask who this ‘friend’ is? Is Mr. Burtt at 
work again? Surely it cannot be the Presbyterian clergyman who 
has recently honoured me with an occasional visit.. The allusion in- 
deed, reminds me of a conversation with him; but still I cannot ima- 
gine that he would descend to such a course as you intimate, of tale- 
bearing, or that, if he had, you would be imprudent enough to expose 
him by publishing his ‘reports.’ I believe I always treated him po- 
litely, because I thought him not unworthy of it. But your allusion 
seems to shed a little light on the object, or at least the use he made 
of his visits. Be pleased then to let us have a little more, just enough 
to clear the way, or confirm the suspicion which you have awakened. 

Now for ‘the question.’ You say the Protestant religion existed 
before Luther. But where did it exist? ‘In the Bible,’ you reply. 
But how comes it that for 1500 years, no one had been able to discov-, 
er it in the Bible, which you say, is so easily understood. In an- 
swer to this you tell me after the Magdeburg Centuriators, that ‘a 
people’ had discarded several doctrines of the church, previous to 
the reformation; leaving me to guess who this ‘a people’ were. But 
hold; th$ ‘Waldenses’ are mentioned. The Protestants in claiming 
the‘Waldenses’ for their religious progenitors, are able to climb the 
tree of antiquity, only as high as the year 1160. This alone is fatal 
to the doctrine of both. But were the doctrines of both the saijie? 
So you admit and assert. But where is the proof? Did the Wal- 
denses deny free will, with the Reformers ? Did they hold that God 
by his hidden councils is the author of sin ? I say they did not. But 
this is not the only difference. The Reformers in trying to strength- 
en their party by the accession of the Waldenses, stipulated for cer- 
tain changes in the doctrine and practice of the latter which shows 
the difference between them. ‘They were required to assist no lon- 
ger at mass, to abstain from all the papal superstitions, and to reject 


292 


CONTROVERSY. 


the ministry of the Catholic clergy.’ (Hist, des Egl. Ref. de Pierre 
Gilles, c. v.) It seems that your Protestant ancestors, therefore, be- 
fore the Reformation, were in the habit of attending at mass! But 
besides they believed in the sacraments, auricular confession, absolu- 
tion, in the real presence and even horrible to relate, transubstantia- 
tion itself! — except when the priest happened to be in mortal sin, and 
then, they kindly allowed any layman in the state of grace, to pro- 
nounce the words of consecration. When the Reformers, Bucerand 
CEcolampadius, undertook to make protestants of the Waldenses, 
the latter, by the proposed terms of union, were required to believe 
*1. That a Christian may lawfully give evidence on oath. 2. That 
auricular confession is not commanded. 3. That a Christian even 
among'Christians may lawfully exercise the office of magistrate. 4. 
That a minister may lawfully be possessed of property sufficient to 
support his family. 5. That Jesus Christ has ordained only two sa- 
craments, Baptism and the Eucharist.’ (Idem, ibid.) 

These testimonies, Rev. Sir, show that when you wished to search 
for the genealogy of Protestantism beyond Luther, you have missed 
your way, in tracingit to the Waldenses. But they protested against 
some of the doctrines of the Church of Rome. Yes; and so did the 
Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Pelagians, Montanists, Manichseans, 
and their spiritual descendants — the Albigenses — not to name the 
10001 other sects who protested in the same manner. Here then, you 
are fast — and from the dilemma not all the ingenuity of man can ex- 
tricate you. ‘Either the Protestant religion is a religion differing from 
the religion of Christ, or else the religion of Christ was not professed 
by any society of Christians, previous to the time of Luther. To 
which of these alternatives will you cling? one of them is inevitable.’ 
Will any Protestant then, having the least concern for his soul’s sal- 
vation, risk his eternity, on the chance of a religion which ‘no society 
of Christians, (either orthodox or heterodox) have ever professed, from 
the days of Jesus Christ till the coming of Martin Luther and John 
Calvin ? I say boldly, that in that whole interval, there never exist- 
ed such a society, and I challenge you to name it, if there did. There- 
fore the Protestant religion is only three hundred years old, and con- 
sequently cannot be the religion of Jesus Christ. Now, Rev. Sir, 
meet this argument if you can. As a clergyman you are supposed to 
be acquainted with ecclesiastical history — and if you can name any 
society of Christians professing the doctrines held by any sect of the 
Reformation, I hereby pledge myself, either to prove that you are mis- 
taken, or else give up the contest. But if you cannot, then, from a 
principle of conscience, you, and all Protestant ministers, should 
cease to delude yourselves and the people, by pretending that there 
were persons, who held your doctrines before the Reformation. Ne- 
ver, in the whole universe ! 

But, then, says mv Rev. opponent, ‘the Greek church which you 
own to be an ancient church, also protests.’ This is nothing to the 
purpose — I make you a present of the various ‘protests’ of all the 
heretics and schismatics of antiquity, beginning with Ebion and Ce- 
rinthus, and ending with Jerome of Prague—- and even this cannot 
extricate your proposition from its difficulties. Do the Protestants, 


CONTROVERSY. 


29S 


or any sect of Protestants agree in doctrines with any society of 
Christians previous to the Reformation ? This is the question. This 
is the knotty point. Let us see, then, whether your appeal to the 
Greek church can aid you. The Greeks believe in seven sacraments, 
in the real presence, in transubstantiation, the sacrifice of mass, 
prayers for the departed, and even the invocation of saints. These 
are Mr. Breckinridge’s Protestants previous to the Reformation — and 
no sooner has he named them, than he exclaims, ‘how plain it is then, 
that the Protestant religion was professed ages before Luther.’ It is 
not so plain, especially when we recollect that the Greek church ana- 
thematised the heresy of Protestantism as decidedly as the Council 
of Trent. When the patriarch, Cyril Lupar, was detected holding 
correspondence with the leaders of the Reformation in Germany and 
Holland, and it was ascertained that he had imbibed a partiality for 
their novelties, the consequence was, that for this he was deposed 
and disgraced. His successors summoned a council of twenty-three 
bishops, including the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Alexandria, in 
which Cyril and his protestant doctrines were condemned, in lan- 
guage as vigorous as that of Leo X. The same took place in a sub- 
sequent council of twenty five bishops, includingthe Metropolitan of 
Russia. Again, in 1627, Dositheus, patriarch of Jerusalem, held a 
third council at Bethlehem, which expressly condemned the doctrine 
of Cyril Lupar and the Protestants. (See Perpet. de la Foi, vol. 4. 
liv. 8 ) 

Thus, it is manifest, that whilst you acknowledge the necessity of 
finding the Protestant religion somewhere, previous to Luther, you 
fail in every attempt. But really it is too amusing to see a Protest- 
ant clergyman point to the Greek church, and exclaim — look there 
— ‘How plain it is that the Protestant religion existed before Luther?’ 
— and then with great complacency — ‘so much for your dilemma.’ — 
Was the Protestant religion professed by any society of Christians 
before Luther? If it was, give me the name of that society — the 
name of thai precious society; when did it exist ? where did it dwell ? 
who speaks of it? the name and the proof are all 1 require. But if 
you will do neither, then the matter is ended — and Martin Luther 
and John Calvin have the glory of being the first men that ever pro- 
fessed the religion of Christ. Can you meet this argument ? 

I cannot stop. Rev. Sir^to expose in detail, the twisting efforts of 
your letter to evade ‘the question,’ by embroiling it with doctrines 
which belong exclusively to the Catholic Church. But the spirit of 
your writings may be represented in a little dialogue between us, in 
which justice shall be done to your defence of the Protestant Reli- 
gion. 

Catholic . Good morning Mr. B. How do you do? 

Presbyterian. Good morning Sir; — a little fatigued, from riding 
in the stage-coach, but still able, by the grace of God, to defend the 
Bible, and the Protestant Religion. 

C. 0 dear! who has ventured to attack the Bible? 

P. Why you, Sir; you would have all to think alike in Religion, 
and ‘this is Deism, barefaced Deism.’ (See commencement of Mr. 
B’s. last letter.) 


294 


CONTROVERSY: 


C. But let me explain, did not Christ in making a revelation re- 
quire that men should believe it ? 

F. Certainly; but look at your doctrine of Purgatory ! 

C. But this is not the question, if Christ required men to believe 
his revelation, did he not require them ipso facto, to think alike in 
religion ? And is this Deism ? 

F. In vain have 1 exposed your doctrine of Purgatory, I can get 
no reply. 

C. I will reply, I assure you, when we shall have settled the pre- 
sent question. But pray have I written against the Bible ? 

P. You have written against the Protestant Religion, which is the 
same thing. We take the Bible alone. Surely God can speak plain- 
ly in his written work. And then, transubstantiation is as young as 
the year 1215. Indulgences area bundle of licences to sin. (See 
Dr. Claggot.) 

C. But if the Bible alone be the rule of faith, and God speak 
plainly in his word, how is it that Protestants are divided into as ma- 
ny systems as there are sects; and opinions, as there are heads ? 

F. So then, you would have all men to think alike ! ‘Deism, bare- 
faced Deism.’ And then, look at your persecutions of Heretics, by 
the infallible Popes, and the doctrine of human merits derogatory to 
the merits of Christ; and the church setting herself up above the word 
of God. 

C. All this is irrelevant, it seems to me, and does not belong to 
the question. Why are Protestants so divided if they are taught by 
the Bible ? besides the Bible alone, is the Bible on the shelf. 

P. Profound logic ! My God, my Bible and my mind are suppos- 
ed in my rule of faith. 

C. But according to this, the mind is the instrument of interpre- 
tation, acting on the Bible, and, as every man’s mind is different from 
that of his , neighbour, so there must be those different interpretations 
by which Protestantism is divided. Does the Bible contain them 
all? 

P. Will you say, then, that the Holy Spirit cannot speak plainly 
in the written word of God r ‘Poor Bible, what a transgressor thou 
hast been!’ And look at your own rule of faith, Decrees of Coun- 
cils, Bulls of Popes, Apochryphal Books, Consent of the Fathers, 
through all those immense folios you have^to wade before you can tell 
what is your rule of faith. 

C. Excuse me Sir; my rule is much more simple. ‘I believe in the 
Holy Catholic Church.’ This is my rule. I agree in belief, by this 
rule, with' all the millions of Catholics that live, or have lived, from 
the days of Christ; and am seperated by it from all the heresies of 
modern as well as ancient times. Whereas your Protestant rule in- 
troduces heresies, as for example, Universalism, and Unitarianism, 
and leaves you unable to refute them. What do you say to this ? 

P. In vain have I called on you to defend your doctrines. I have 
proved that Transubstantiation is as young as 1215, that Purgatory is 
an invention of men, and that Masses are a way for the Priests to get 
money. (See Epiphanius.) To all these proofs, not a word. But 
you charge on the Protestant rule, the errors of extreme heresies. — 


CONTROVERSY. 


The Bible is the rule. Interpretation the use of the rule. If men 
‘abuse it,’ that is not the rule. Are we ever to pass from this ques- 
tion ? 

C. I am happy, my dear Sir, to perceive that at length you have 
acknowledged private interpretation, as an ‘abuse.’ You are almost 
—on this point, altogether — a Catholic. We may now pass to the 
second topic, having closed this one, by your unexpected declaration. 

P. ‘Unexpected!’ Strange language this! After five months dis- 
cussion, you admit then, that you have evaded the real Protestant 
rule, the Bible, and argued against its ‘abuses alone.’ And to this 
day you have not told us what your own ‘rule of faith’ is. But I shall 
proceed to the second question. From the language of Romanists 
themselves, it is clear that a great many immoralities and iniquities 
were committed, and this among the clergy as well as laity of the 
church. (See letter from the three Bishops at Bononia.) Therefore 
a Reformation was necessary. 

C. As you have confirmed your first admission, of private inter- 
pretation’s being the ‘abuse’ of the Bible; I now follow you to the se- 
cond question. The Catholics, indeed, desired a reformation; but it 
was of morals, and not of doctrine. They held that the doctrine of 
the church was pure and holy, but that men had departed from its 
sanctity by the wickedness of their lives. But pray what is ‘the 
Protestant Religion?’ 

P. ‘The Religion of the Reformation.’ And here I stand ready to 
prove that it is the Religion of Christ. 

C. Of course then, it comprises the whole family of sects, of which 
the Reformation was the parent? Are they all the religion of Christ? 

P. You have not answered my arguments against transubstantia- 
tion and the other doctrines of your system. And now I shall show, 
by the grace of God, that your doctrine of transubstantiation is not 
the Bible, and that if it be true Christianity may be false, since it 
invades the testimony of our senses. (See Scotus and Bellarminet) 

C. But stay, my dear friend the question is of another subject.— 
And in order that we may reach it at once, let us admit that every 
doctrine rejected by the Reformers was erroneous. Let that be con- 
sidered as granted, and now show me that ‘the Protestant religion is 
the religion of Christ.’ 

P. Ah ! sir, I see through your Jesuit policy. You wish me to show 
that the Protestant religion is the religion of Christ. But as I have 
begun, so I shall continue to expose your system. And as in my last 
1 ? howed that transubstantiation was promoted into a doctrine, A. D. 
1215. So, now I shall prove that it is absurd to say that a priest can 
make his God and eat him. (See Cicero, and Averroes the Arabian 
philosopher.) Besides the doctrine of intentions, and masses in hon- 
our of the saints. 

C. But this is not the question. Was there ever any society pre- 
vious to Luther professing the doctrines of any sect of Protestant- 
sm ? 

P. Yes: the Centuriators of Magdeburg, speak of ‘a people,’ who 
did not agree with the Catholic church. And again look at the Wal- 
denses and the Greek church which you admit to be an ancient church. 

36 


39* 


CONTROVERSY. 


4J. And as to the Reformers, is it clear, that they were the men 
whom God would have selected to reform his church ? 

P. Why have you clipped their doctrine and character by your 
broken extracts. But look at your Popes, Sergius and Formosus, 
were they better than the Reformers ? 

C. Indeed it seems not. But the Reformers were religion -makers, 
by profession, whereas the Popes could change nothing of Catholic 
doctrine; however much they might degrade their station by personal 
vices. And besides if you meant to compliment the Reformers, the 
worst of our Popes should not have been selected for the comparison. 

P. But look at the Popes, called by your own historian Apostate 
rather than apostolical And then your doctrines of inten- 

tions, &c. 

It is useless, Rev. Sir, to prosecute the dialogue. It shows the spi- 
rit and the manner of your pen. You have confused the questions, 
by the introduction of extraneous matter, as if the hope of your cause, 
depended on the jumble of topics and the mystification of argument. 
In all this, however, there is no merit of originality It has been the 
custom of all your predecessors. 

Zanchius, one of the Reformers, describes the controversial spirit 
of his reforming colleagues, in the following candid language. ‘I am 
indignant,’ says he ‘when I consider the manner in which most of us 
defend our cause. The true state of the question we often., on set 
purposes involve in darkness, that it may not be understood: we have 
the impudence to deny things the most evident: we assert what is vi- 
sibly false: the most impious doctrines we force on the people as the 
first principles of faith, and orthodox opinions we condemn as here- 
tical: we torture the Scriptures till they agree with our own fancies; 
and boast of being the disciples of the fathers, while we refuse to fol- 
low their doctrines: to deceive, to calumniate, to abuse, is our famili- 
ar practice: nor do we care for any thing, provided we can defend our 
cause, good or bad, right or wrong. O ! what times what manners.’ — 
(Zanch. Ad. Storm. T. vii. Col. 828.) But if possible, let us come 
again to the point. Answer me the following questions, and they 
will decide the matter. They are supported by the reasoning and 
authorities of my last letter, to which I refer the reader. 

_ 1st. Question. Did there exist previous to the Reformation, a so- 
ciety of Christians, in any part of the world, professing the doctrines 
of any sect of Protestantism ? Prove that there did and I give up 
the argument But if there did not, then, Protestantism is any thing 
but the religion of Christ. Solve this, will you ? 

2d Question. Reviewing the doctrines and character of the Reform- 
ers, as stated in my last letter, from their own writings; viewing the 
consequences of the Reformation on the morals of the people; is there 
any, the smallest evidence that the Spirit of God, had au<'ht to do 
with it? If it had, then please to account for the manner in which 
they spoke and wrote of each other. 

8d. ‘Does the Religion of Christ teach the doctrines of Protestant- 
sm, from the highest point of Episcopalianism, down the descending 
scale to the farthest verge of Unitarianism ! If not, the Protestant 


CONTROVERSY. 


2 97 


Religion is not the Religion of Christ.’ For all these beJong to Pro- 
testantism. 

But in answer to this it seems that ‘Unitarians, Universalists, &c.’ 
are not Protestants. But why not? Have they not their ‘God, their 
Bible, and their mind,’ as well as Presbyterians. Have they not 
‘honesty and common sense’ to interpret the Scriptures; and what 
more is requisite according to your ov/n showing? Please then, Rev. 
Sir, to tell me what denominations are to be considered ‘Protestants;’ 
for if Dr. Channingand the faculty of Cambridge, be not entitled to the 
appellation, 1 am at a loss to know who are. Are the Friends Protest- 
ants. The Shakers, Swedenborgians, Baptists, are they Protestants ? 
In a word, tell me what denominations constitute what you under- 
stand by ‘the Protestant religion. It is not for me to determine, among 
such learned people, which denomination is right and which is wrong. 
Show me the boundaries of the Protestant religion,’ and I shall not 
transgress them. Narrow your definition to whatever limits you 
please — and then prove that the religion professed by those whom it 
encloses, and the religion of Christ are the same thing. If you will 
not do this, you had better give it up. 

4. ‘Had the Reformers them themselves, and if not, could they 
transmit to their successors any ministerial authority ?’ To this you 
give answer ‘that whatever authority our church possessed in this way 
was imparted to them.’ But our church recalled this authority, in 
their suspension and excommunication, and a new supply was neces- 
sary. Whence was it derived ? And if not derived at all, it follows 
on your own admission, that the protestant clergy differ from the 
laity only in colour of their dress and the diversity of their occupa- 
tion. Will you clear up this point ? Can you do it ? 

When you insinuate that I have misquoted the Reformers, you 
should be prepared to sustain the charge. Your lengthened quota- 
tion from Luther does not alter mine, which was to show that he de- 
nied free will in man, denied the possibility of keeping the command- 
ments, or of doing good works. But his own writings indicate his 
doctrine much more correctly than any commentary of those who, 
ashamed of it, would accuse me of perverting his meaning. ‘A 
person, says he, that is baptised cannot though he would, lose his 
salvation by any sins how grevious soever, unless he refuses to be- 
lieve. For no sins can damn him, but unbelief alone.’ (Cap. Bab. 
Tom. 2. fol. 74. 1.) 

Again ‘the Papists teach, that faith in Christ justifies indeed, but 
that God’s commandments are likewise to be kept. Now this is di- 
rectly to deny Christ, and abolish faith.’ (Tom. 5. Witt. ed. fol. 
311.) 

Is this passage designed to recommend good works? It requires 
greater penetration than I am possessed of, to discover any such 
meaning, either in this or the passage quoted at the close of your last 
letter. Now Rev. Sir, be pleased to meet the arguments and autho- 
rities of this, and my last paper on the question of ‘the Protestant 
religion.’ In this it is made clear that your attempts to derive the 
Protestant religion from Christ by the channel of the Waldenses 


298 


CONTROVERSY. 


and the Greek Church is as unprofitable to you, as it is amusing to 
the reader. Another effort, however may be more successful, and 
we shall wait patiently to see what your next pen will bring to 
light. 

Yours, &c. 

John Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY No. XXVI. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF 
CHRIST? 

Philadelphia , July 26 , 1833 . 

To the Rev. John Hughes, 

Rev. £fe>,*--Busaeus, the Jesuit, gives this sage council to his disci- 
ples, ‘avoid, if you can, controversy with an heretic on the article of 
iaith !’ This wily apothogm has been the pole star of all your dis- 
cussions. On the first great question, the rule of faith, after all your 
promises, you did never once define the Roman Catholic rule of faith; 
and even now the public know not (by any thing you have said,) 
what your rule is, except that it is not the Bible; and not the Protest- 
ant rule of faith. You began the controversy by requiring me to 
prove the cononical authority of the Bible. This was taken for grant- 
ed, in the very terms of our debate; and it was puerile, deistical, and 
foreign to the question for you to insist on such a course. Yet 1 fol- 
lowed you again and again over the ten heads: and when they wax so 
frail and so weary that they die away, lo, you charge me with giving 
up our rule of faith, because I still insist that the Bible is our only 
rule. As if conscious of the very defenceless condition in which 
you left your rule, you continue to revert to the subject from letter to 
letter. Now if you are afraid to go forward with the present ques- 
tion, I will still meet you on your rule of faith, and give you an op- 
portunity to defend your neglected friends ‘Unwritten Traditions,’ 
‘the Apochryphal Books,’ and ‘the unanimous consent of the Fathers.’ 
Without this it is useless farther to notice your clamour on this sub- 
ject. What takes away all apology from you is this, that you have 
admitted the Bible to be a rule; but you deny that the Bible alone is a 
sufficient rule. Even the vilest heretics have, as you allow, been so 
far respectful towards revelation, as to receive it as the true and suf- 
ficient rule of faith. But to the church of Rome belongs the disas- 
trous distinction of refusing to the word of God its proper rank as 
our exclusive and infallible guide in matters of religion. You have 
however, admitted that it is a rule. Here, then, we agree: but we dif- 
fer in this, that you would add something to it to make it perfect. — 
Surely, then, the duty lay on you to exhibit and to prove what that 
is without which the rule is not complete. We well know what that 
something is, but I have striven without effect to bring you out in de- 
fence of it. In vain then do you insist that I have given up the Pro- 
testant rule, when I aver that the Bible is that rule, and that private 
interpretation is only the method of its use. But supposing the Pro- 


CONTROVERSY. 


300 

tesfant rule to be abandoned, the questions still return upon j#u,and 
call aloud for, answer, where is the true rule? What is the rule? — 
Why do you withhold it? 

As you lay so much stress on private interpretation, it may be well 
briefly to say something of your system on this subject. And here 
let me present the memorable admission, unconsciously made, in your 
last letter by which all my charges of Deism are fairly confirmed. — 
"You say, ‘the Bible is the rule; and common-sense interpretation the 
way to find the sense of the rule ’ Your common-sense interpreta- 
tion tells you, that transubstantiation is absurd and impossible; anoth- 
er’s ‘common-sense interpretation,’ tells him that the incarnation and 
the deity of Christ are absurd and impossible; a third man’s ‘com- 
mon-sense interpretation,’ tells him* that tl^e book itself is a book of 
contradiction, as plainly appears by the contradictory ‘common -sense 
interpretations,’ which Protestants give of it, and that, therefore, re- 
velation is absurd and impossible.’ Now is not this to say that to 
‘common-sense’ the Bible has no meaning? We as Protestants hold 
that men may err and do err in the interpretation of the Bible, as of 
other books: but that like other books it has a meaning, which is to be 
reached, as the meaning of other books is reached. But you allow 
that ‘common-sense’ may teach any thing from the Bible; and may 
from the Bible prove the Bible false ! How strange that you by pri- 
vate interpretation insist so zealously for the fixed and clear mean- 
ing of Bellarmine, and yet thus treat the holy book of God ! 

With all the claims of the Church of Rome to be the exclusive and 
infallible interpreter of the word of God, there is not to be found in 
the circle of human productions such crude, silly, and profance com- 
mentaries as those given by the Roman oracle. They have been for 
ages the alternate sport and wonder of the world. I will give a spe- 
cimen, which may at once inform and amuse the reader. 

In the Decretals of Pope Gregory the 9th is the following com- 
mentary on Genesis I. 16: ‘Pope Clement the Sd to the most illustri- 
ous Fmperor of Constantinople, c. 6. Besides you ought also to have 
known that God made two great lights in the firmament of heaven, 
the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night; 
each of them great, but one the greater of the two. For the firma- 
ment of heaven, therefore, viz: the Universal church, God made two 
great lights, that is he appointed two dignities, which are the Ponti- 
fical authority, and the kingly power. But that which rules the day, 
that is to say, the spiritual, is the greater, and that which rules the 
carnal, the less; so that the same difference may be discerned between 
the Popes, and the kings as between the sun and the moon !’ Then 
follows this infallible and learned gloss ! ‘Since, therefore, the earth 
is seven times greater than the moon, and the sun is eight times great- 
er than the earth, therefore the Pontificial dignity is forty-seven times 
greater than the regal dignity.’ After such arithmetical skill, such 
reach of astronomic science, such a profound and perfect commenta- 
ry on the size and significations of the sun, moon, and firmament, 
can any man wonder at Mr. Hughes’s devotion to the interpretation 
of the holy see; or disfHite the propriety of Gallileo’s imprisonment 


CONTROVERSY * 


301 


by the Pope, because he held that the earth was circular, and moved 
round the sun ? 

Again as if to reduce this subject to the last absurdity, the church 
of Rome have a Standing Committee, to regulate and announce the 
legitimate meaning of the decrees of the Council of Trent. The 
difficulty of the case i9 this. The decrees were to be interpreted af- 
ter they were published. Who was to do it? Not the Council and 
Pope united, which (you say) are necessary to constitute infallibility; 
for the Council was then dissolved, and near three centuries had 
passed, and no other has met. The Pope, you say, is not infallible; 
nor is any individual Priest? Who then shall interpret? The best 
approach to it is the standing Committee at Rome, headed by the 
Pbpe, and appointed by the Council to interpret its decrees. It still 
exists and sits statedly at Rome. A collection of its ‘sentences’ has 
recently been published in eight vols. quarto by D. Zamboni. Now, 
query, afre its interpretations fallible or infallible ? They are not in- 
fallible, for you have distinctly told us that none but a General Coun- 
cil confirmed by a Pope can decree or interpret infallibility. But this 
committee is not a General Council; therefore its decisions are falli- 
ble. Yet they are binding. Here then is private interpretation, (the 
radical delusioin of Protestantism) in the last resort, and after all 
the outcry against it, adopted and used by the church of Rome ! Then 
fallible interpretation is, and has been, the exclusive guide of your 
church since the Council of Trent, that is, for two hundred and se- 
venty years; and still worse, this has always been its guide, except 
during the session of the Councils, and as soon as they rise, their de- 
crees, like the Bible, pass over to the ‘radical delusion of Protestant- 
ism, viz: to fallible interpretation.’ 

I said that you were true to the maxim of Busaeus, to avoid con- 
troversy on the articles of faith. If you did it much on the rule of 
faith, you do it more on the second question, now before us. In it, as 
in the other question, there are some points on which we are agreed* 
These of course, we are not calculated to discuss. These are the 
points in which we differ. Against these I protest. To these I have 
directed my first attention. I have already enumerated them, and 
exposed your errors, on a number of them. This I have done by 
right, and murder. But though you still shrink from the discussion 
of them, on them the question turns; and to them you must come, or 
your own church M ill exclaim that you have betrayed her interests. — 
Why is it that you decline such a course? When you refused (in 
settling the terms of the controversy) to discuss this question, Is the 
Roman Catholic religion the religion of Christ? did you mean to keep 
the Roman Catholic religion entirely out of view? Was that your 
design when you accepted the present form of the question and re- 
fused the other? When it became my privilege to introduce the 2d 
question, and when you called on me to define the Protestant teligion, 
did you imagine that your religion would be left untouched, and that 
I would allow the very end for which I engaged w r ith you, to be frus- 
trated by a Jesuit’s arts ? If you did, you will now find that such 
adroitness will net avail. If you did not, you will expect me to pur- 


302 


CONTROVERSY. 


sue the plan of argument already begun, and with some efficacy, if 
we may judge from your strong dissatisfaction. 

1. In the order of discussion for the present letter, I proceed to 
expose Extreme Uunction as a daring invention of the Church of 
Rome, which is not a sacrament of Jesus Christ, is a novelty in the 
church, and ruinous to the souls of men. The decrees of the Coun- 
cil of Trent are to this effect. (Session 14. Chap. 1. Coun. Trent.) 
‘This sacred unction of the sick was instituted, as it were, a true and 
proper sacrament of the New Testament by our Lord Jesus Christ, 
hinted at, indeed, by Mark, but recommended and preached to the 
faithful by the Apostle James, brother of our Lord. ‘Is any man,’ 
saith he, ‘sick among you ? Let him bring in the Priest of the church, 
and let him pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of t!fe 
Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord 
shall raise him up; and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him.’ — 
James v. 14. 15. Chap. -2d. ‘The power and effect of this sacrament 
are explained in the words, ‘the prayer of faith shall save the sick 
man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins they shall 
be forgiven him.’ For this power is the grace of the Holy Spirit; 
whose unction cleanses away sins, if any remain to be expiated, even 
the last traces of sin.’ ‘And he sometimes obtains the restoration of 
his bodily health, if the same shall further the salvation of his soul.’ 
Canon I. ‘If any shall say Extreme Unction is not truly and proper- 
ly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord, and preached by the 
Apostle St. James; but that is a human invention — Let him be accurs- 
ed.’ Canon II. ‘If any shall say, that the holy anointing of the sick 
doth not confer grace, nor remit sins, nor relieve the sick; but that it 
hath long since ceased, as if the grace of healing existed only of old 
—Let him be accused.’ 

Having explicitly stated the doctrine of your church on this sub- 
ject, I now assert: 1. That Extreme Unction is a sacrament of Jesus 
Christ, but a daring innovation of the Church of Rome. 

Dr. Challoner, (a standard writer in your church) in his ‘Catholic 
Christian,’ pp. 3, 4, thus defines a Sacrament. Question. ‘What are 
the necessary conditions for a thing to be a Sacrament? Answer, 1st. 
It must be a sacred, visible or sensible sign. 2. This sacred sign must 
have a power annexed to it of communicating grace to the soul. 3d. 
This must be by virtue of the institution of Christ.’ A nd he adduc- 
es the very words of Christ for the institution of the Lord’s Supper 
and Baptism. Now will any candid readertakeup the only two pas- 
sages of the word of God, referred to for authority, and say that there 
is the least foundation fer a Christian Sacrament? In Mark vi. 13. 
it is written, ‘And they (the twelve Disciples) cast out many devils, 
and annointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.’ Here 
was, plainly, a miracle by the use of oil. But it was to heal the sick, 
not to anoint them for death: and was no Sacrament; the Apostles had 
no authority to do it; and not a word is said about a Sacrament. In- 
deed the Council of Trent seemed fully aware of this, for they say 
in the decree, ‘Being first hinted at by Mark vi. 13;’ and ‘as it were 
instituted.’ Is not the very language expressive of the conscious- 
ness of fraud, and of the absence of authority? Is this the Religion 


CONTROVERSY. 


303 


of Christ ? Is this your holy and infallible church ? The other pas- 
sage from (James v. 14-15.) quoted above, is equally silent about the 
institution of a Sacrament. The unction referred to, was for the 
healing of the sick; the effect was peculiar to the days of miracles; 
and the whole intention, directly opposed to your decree on this sub- 
ject, by which you make it extreme unction, or ‘the Sacrament of the 
dying.’ Now, the decree acknowledges that James did not institute, 
(as none but Christ could,) a Sacrament, in this unction: but that he 
only ‘recommended and published it.’ The same decree also owns, 
that in Mark vi. 13, it was not instituted but only ‘hinted at.’ It re- 
sults then that Christ did not institute it, therefore, it is not a Sacra- 
ment. And yet, your infallible church, gravely tells us, that the re- 
commendation, by an Apostle, of a thing which never existed, gives 
it existence; and that a hint in one place, and an allusion in the other, 
are sufficient authority, for Christian Sacrament. Who then, institut- 
ed this Sacrament? the Church of Rome; and the act by wliich she 
performed it, is a rebellious innovation. The Rhemish translators, 
in their notes on Mark vi. 13, confess that Christ did not institute it, 
when they say ‘It was a preparative to the Scacrament of Extreme 
Unction;’ and they refer us to its completion, in James v. 14-15. 

2. We next notice an insuperable dilemma, into which you are 
brought by this pretended Sacrament. The Council of Trent say3, 
(seesion 22d, c. 1.) ‘that it was not till the last supper that our Lord 
ordained the Apostles to be Priests of the New Testaments.’ But 
the same Council decreed (Sess. 14. c. 3.) ‘that Bishops or Priests 
properly ordained by them, are the proper ministers of the sacrament 
of extreme unction.’ Then the Apostles were not Priests when they 
applied unction to the sick, Mark vi. 13.; and of course it was no sa- 
crament. Therefore, the council has erred. But if you say they 
were Priests, then the Council still has erred, for it says they were 
not Priests till the last supper. So that either way the church has 
erred. Is this your infallible church, which cannot err in an article 
of faith? Does not the Council curse all who reject it, (Canon 1. 
Sess. 7.) ‘Whosoever shall affirm that the sacraments of the new law 
were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, or that they are 
more or fewer than seven, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucha- 
rist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony, or that any 
of tnese is not truly and properly a sacrament: let him be accused.’ 
How strange, does this profane anathema appear in contrast with 
the declarations of Augustin, ‘that the Doctors of this (6th) age, ac- 
knowledge only two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.’ — 
Duo tantum Sacramenta theologi hujus getatis agnoscunt. 

3. This pretended Sacrament and Purgatory, cannot, on your own 
principles, subsist together. The decree, as quoted above, declares, 
‘that the power of this Sacrament is the grace of the Holy Spirit, 
whose unction clanses away sins, if any remain to be expiated, even 
the last traces of sin;’ and also, ‘that Christ has forfeited the close of 
our existence with the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, as with a 
most secure defence.’ The Catechism of the Church, also states the 
same, at large; and tells us that ‘while penance is for the remission of 
mortal sins; the grace of this Sacrament remits venial sins; and is 

37 


r * 




CONTttOVEKSY. 


not to be administered until the penitent has confessed and has re- 
ceived’ ( i. e. the Eucharist.) But Purgatory, as we showed in Let- 
ter No. 24, is for thfe cleansing away of just such sins as these; as, for 
example, ‘from that part of the church which is in Purgatory,’ (Bel- 
larmine.) Now if Extreme Unction does the work at death, what 
need of Purgatory ? Why atone over and over again; 1 . by the blood 
of Christ; 2. by Extreme Unction; then 3. by Purgatory ? Hence to 
say Masses for those who have died under Extreme Unction, may 
make money for the Priests, but is deceiving the people. And if it 
be to make it more certain, then is not Extreme Unction an uncertain 
thing, and useless ? Do they not destroy each other ? 

4. ‘But there is a greater cheat than this in the doctrine of Ex- 
treme Unction. Such, it is pretended, are the intention, efficacy, and 
virtues of this rite that, if it be necessary to the salvation of the per- 
son who is anointed, that he should recover, he will; but if this be not 
necessary, he will not. Hence it follows: 1. That if the person re- 
covers, he was in a state of damnation, after he was anointed. 2. 
That if he does not recover, he died in a state of salvation. There- 
fore, nobody was ever damned that was anointed at the hour of his 
death. Therefore, also, nobody that recovers had benefitted by any 
Sacrament he received before the unction; otherwise he would not 
have been in a state of damnation. Upon the whole then, it is plain, 
as this Sacrament’ like the rest, is said to operate, (ex opere operato, 
by its own power,) whoever has a mind never to die, needs only be in 
a state of damnation when he is anointed.’ 

5. One of the awful features of this invention of the Church of 
Rome is, that it encourages delay of repentance till the hour of death, 
and holds out the grave, delusive and destroying hopes of heaven. — • 
At death, our great business is to die, not to prepare for it; that is the 
business of life. But by this institution, the dying sinner is encour- 
aged to depend upon the last act ot a Priest for the salvation of his 
soul. Baptism, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent informs 
us, remits original sin; Penance, remits mortal sins; and Extreme 
Unction remits venial sins; it also says that in this, as in the other 
Sacraments, the Priest is the representative of Jesus Christ; (See 6th 
chap.) and the Council of Trent, (Canon 8th on the Sacraments,) de- 
clares, ‘that grace is conferred by the Sacraments of the new law, by 

, their own power.’ Put these doctrines together, and it results, that 
the Sacraments of the Church of Rome, in the hands of any Priest, 
are in and of themselves, sufficient to fit a man to die. Hence the 
work of the Spirit, of God on the heaj’t is wholly put aside; the ob- 
ject of faith is not Christ, but, as Mr. Hughes himself informs us, 
‘the Holy Catholic Church,’ i. e. the Priesthood of the church: the re- 
generation of the heart is not required, or if it be, it is wrought by 
the Priest and the Sacraments: and thus without saving faith or per- 
sonal holiness, without repentance and the knowledge of the Saviour, 
the departing soul is absolved by the Priest, and by the application of 
oil to the body, his soul is dismissed a safe and fit candidate for hea- 
ven! 

6. This institution is an utter novelty in the Church of Christ.— 
The very language of the decree owns It to be an invention of men. 


CONTttOVEHST, 


m 


P(;pe Innocent the 1st, calls it a kind of sacrament. Cardinal Ca- 
jetan, Chemmitius, Hugo, Peter, Lombard, Alexander, Cassander, not 
to mention Augustine, and other Fathers, deny that it is a sacrament 
of Jesus Christ, and thereby show that it is a novelty in the church. 

7. In fine, this article of faith entirely explodes your infallibility 
as a church. This is proved in the dilemma stated above. But still 
more, the Rev. Dr. Manning, a celebrated defender of your faith, in 
his ‘short method with Protestants,’ (pp. 29. &c.) thus writes: ‘Th® 
Church of Christ can only be that which belietes wholly and entirely 
the doctrine that was taught by Christ, and delivered by his apostles. 
That church that would teach anyone point of doctrine contrary to 
the revealed word of God, which I call heresy, would not the chaste 
spouse of Christ, but an harlot and the school of Satan, and the gates 
ol hell would prevail against her.’ Mr. Hughes also, has said (Let- 
ter No. 1.) ‘that the doctrines of Christianity have been regarded by 
the Catholic Church from the beginiing as fixed stars in the firma- 
ment of revelation.’ Then as this doctrine was not from the begin- 
ning, the Roman is not the Catholic Church; and, ,by your own and 
Dr. Manning’s showing, she is heretical, she is an harlot, and gates of 
hell have prevailed against her! 

II. The Church of Rome is grossly idolatrous. The Church of 
Rome worships, and commands the worship, (not only of the conse- 
crated bread, as we have already showed, but) of the cross of Christ, 
of the Virgin Mary, of the Saints, of relics and images. I have al- 
ready proved in former letters that the Catechism of the Council of 
Trent has omitted that part of the second commandment which for- 
bids the making and worshipping of images. Though you have dis- 
puted this, you have not denied that the versions used in various coun- 
tries, either wholly drop, or criminally suppress the offensive parts. 
Indeed the very edition printed by Mr. Cummiskey in this city, re- 
commended by four Arch-Bishops, and used, probably, in St. Johns, 
wholly omits it. If not it is easy to disprove it. These are expres- 
sive erasures. But we have decrees of Councils for idolatry. The 
2d Council of Nice established idolatry by law. How stoutly its acts 
were opposed, in the bosom of the church, at that day, I need hardly 
inform you; and I suppose you also know that when the emperors 
would have put down idolatry, the Popes would not permit it; but en- , 
throned idolatry in the heart of the church. The Council of Trent 
has reduced this worship, (though with some caution) to a system.— 
Thus, (25th Sess.) it is said, ‘It is a good and useful thing, suppliantly, 
to invoke the saints, and to flee to their prayers, help and assistance;’ 
‘that veneration and honour are due to the relics of the saints, and 
that it is a useful thing for the faithful to honour these and other sa- 
cred monuments, and that the memorials of the saints are to be fre- 
quented, to obtain their help and assistance;’ ‘that the images of Christ, 
of the Virgin, mother of God, and of other saints, are to be had and 
retained especially in churches, and due honours and veneration ren- 
dered them; that we are to kiss them, uncover our heads in their pre- 
sence, and prostrate ourselves;’ ‘that great advantages are to be de- 
rived from all sacred images, — because of the divine miracles per-? 
formed by the saints;’ ‘that new miracles are t« be admirted, and new 


306 


CONTROVERSY. 

4 * 


relics to bo received, with the recognition and approval of a bishop/ 
&c. It is remarkable, that the very language, word for word, in which 
the heathen, both of ancient and modern times, excused their idola- 
try, is used by the church of Rome. And what is still more remark- 
able, their worship of idols and Saints, and their abounding ceremo- 
nies, are derived in chief part from the ancient Pagans. Let any in- 
telligent reader take up ‘Middleton’s Letter from Rome, showing the 
exact conformity between Popery and Paganism, or the religion of the 
present Romans derived from that of their heathen ancestors,’ and if 
he does not arise from its perusal a Protestant in his opinions on this 
subject, at least, if he can in any sort escape the conviction of mod- 
ern Rome’s heathenism and idolatry, he must be something of a stock 
himself! 

The church of Rome worships the cross of Christ. Thomas Aqui- 
nas (your divine doctor) tells us, ‘that the cross of Christ is to be 
adored with divine adoration;’ ‘if we speak of the very cross on 
which Christ was crucified, it is to be worshipped with divne worship.’ 
(Aquin. 3. p. q. 25. Art. 4.) The following is the authorised worship 
of the cross in the church of Rome: it is taken from the Breviary, the 
book which contains the daily service of the church, i. e . their Book 
of Common Prayer, sanctioned by the Popes; of universal use in the 
church; complied by order of the-Council of Trent; and enjoined with 
great strictness upon all who enjoy any ecclesiastical revenue, upon 
all the regular orders of Monks and Nuns; upon sub-deacons. Dea- 
cons, and Priests, to repeat either in public or private, the whole ser- 
vice of each day from its pages. The omission of any one of the 
eight portions of which that service consists, is declared to be a more 
talsin. This book contains, the following idolatrous worship pag- 
330. 


The English translation in the office 
of the holy week, is this: 

Hail cross of hopes the most sublime. 
Now is the mourning passion time. 
Improve religious souls in grace, 

The sins of criminals efface 1 


O crux Ave ! spes unica ! 
Hoc passionis tempore, 
Auge piis justitiam, 
Reisque dona veniam. 


The Virgin Mary is also worshipped; not only honoured, but wor- 
shipped. I observe you recognise this a part of the religious educa- 
tion of your collier, (letter No. 5.) Father Crasset (page 60. to 128) 
says ‘being truly our Saviour’s mother, as well in heaven as she was 
on earth, she still retains a sort of natural authority over his person, 
over his' goods, and over his omnipotence; so that, as Albertus Magnus 
says, by her motherly authority she can command him. She pre- 
serves from heresy and errors, she defends, comforts, procures a good 
death for her followers, has brought souls out of purgatory; we ought 
to render her religious honour; also the same to her images, as the ma- 
ny miracles done by them require.’ 

In the ‘offices of the blessed Virgin,’ is this prayer. ‘Let Mary and 
her son bless us !’ Confession is made ‘to Almighty God, and the 
blessed Virgin Mary,’ &c. &c. Absolution (see Ritual) is made in the 
name of ‘the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the merits of the 
blessed Virgin,’ &c. &c. Bellarmin closes the discussion on this ve- 


CONTROVERSY. 


30 7 

ry topic with this idolatrous doxology. Laue Deo Virginique matri 
M arise: ‘Glory be to God and the Virgin Mary his mother.’ In the 
Breviary ('office of the blessed Mary, she is hailed and worshipped, as 
the gate of heaven; she is implored to loose the bands of the guilty, 
to give light to the blind, to establish their peace and drive away all 
evil; to make them holy, and to guide them safely till they see Jesus 
on high ! She is called the glorious mistress of the earth, and the 
queen of Heaven ! And this not by a transient fanatic, but in the 
book of common prayer, in which the daily exercises of the Roman 
church are performed; which Mr. Hughes and every Priest is bound 
to use; the standard book of worship, and the guide of the ‘universal’ 
church. Is not this gross unqualified creature-worship? Could more 
be said of God ? Can He do more than is thus attributed to a mere 
creature ? 

The worship of Images in the Church of Rome is clearly idolatrous. 
But for want of room I omit the proof now, yet will return to it when 
you please. 

As to relics it seems almost incredible to what an extent supersti- 
tion and idolatry have been carried. These, as will be seen in the de- 
cree copied above, are to be religiously honoured, in plain English, 
worshipped. 11000 are preserved in one church in Spain; some of 
these are ‘several pieces of the most holy cross, on which Christ suf- 
fered; thirteen thorns from the crown He wore; a piece of the man- 
ger in which He lay; a piece of the handkerchief with which the Ho- 
ly Virgin wiped her eyes at the foot of the cross; a thigh of St. Law- 
rence; and the nails, and lance, and other instruments of Christ’s pas- 
sion, &c. They show at Rome the heads of Peter and Paul, a lock of 
the Virgin’s hair, a phial of her tears, some of the sponge, the rod of 
Aaron, and part of the ark of the covenant, though the latter the Jews 
never could find after the Babylonish captivity. The emerald dish 
on which our Saviour was said to have eaten his last supper, was tak- 
en to Paris by the ungracious French troops; and the ‘Institute,’ on 
trial, found it apieGe of green glass. They swear by these relics, they 
worship them avowedly, (as in the case of the cross) they consecrate 
them, dedicate them to God, and church to them, and even trace mi- 
racles to them. I will not pursue the humiliating detail. But, sure- 
ly, when the authority of the church enjoined, and the poeple practis- 
ed such idolatry and superstition, it was time for protests to sound, 
and Reformation to begin. On this w hole subject the Council of Con- 
stantinople, and the 2d Council of Nice, were directly at issue, though 
in close succession one after the other. They cannot both be right. 
One said Images must not be put in the churches, nor honoured by the 
people. The other rescinded their decisions, anathematized them, 
and erected and worshipped with new zeal the images winch they 
had broken down. Which was right ? Surely not both ? If either 
was wrong, your infallibility perishes ? 

III. The Church of Rome is an enemy to human liberty, and has 
done all in her power to stifle it. When you defined the Reformation 
to be ‘the religion of free thinking about the meaning of the Bible; the 
religion in which every man has a right to judge for himself,’ (Letter 
21.) you unwittingly disclosed the doctrine and spirit of your com- 


CONTROVERSY. 


50 3 

munion, viz: that no man has a right to judge for himself, but must re- 
ceive what he is commanded to believe in implicit faith. The spirit 
of oppression begins in your church as soon as the child is born, and 
ends only with death — nay, if he will not submit, his ‘soul after death 
is devoted’ as in case of John Huss,‘to infernal devils.’ The 7 Sess. 
14- Can. Coun. Trent, thus lords it over the souls of men: ‘Whoever 
shall affirm that when these baptized children grow up, they are to be 
asked wheter they will confirm the promises made by their godfathers 
in their name at their baptism} and if they say they will not, they are 
to be left to their own choice, and not to be compelled in the mean 
time to lead a Christian life, by any other punishment than exclusion 
from the Eucharist and the other sacraments, until they repent: let 
him be acc .rsed.’ Then, is not every person baptized in your com- 
munion liable to force, (where it will be tolerated) by punishment, be- 
sides exclusion from the sacraments, if he will not submit! Surely ! 
where, then, is his liberty P Is he not the slave of spiritual despotism 
whether he will or not! Baptism thus becomes, as it has been truly 
said, an indellible brand of slavery; and the church claims her slaves 
wherever she finds them, and condemns them to perdition when they 
will not submit; and being the ‘only true’ church, they are to be forc- 
ed into her communion, or damned out of it. And as this is a canon 
of the church, involving an article of faith, so every true Catholic 
must believe it without doubt or faultering, viz: that punishment is to 
applied to compel belief.. Again: suppose the unhappy subject, (say 
in Italy or Spain,) when ‘he grows up’ resolves that he will not ‘con- 
firm the promises made in his name by his godfather at baptism,’ we 
have practical demonstration of the treatment he endures. The 
inquisition is at hand. I have ahvays failed to fix this eye sore on your 
vision! You will not see it. But the public will. The Inquisition 
is a court of which the Pope is the head; it is his tribunal, and is es- 
tablished throughout the world, wherever there are Roman Catholics, 
and where the government will tolerate it. These bloody tribunals 
arrest and punish, and torture, and condemn to death for error of doc- 
trine; not for transgressions of civil law, for they are professedly spi- 
ritual courts, and have to do with ‘heretical pravity.’ Yet they apply 
force from first to last. The interior of an inquisition is hell on eartli. 
Not only have some of their victims escaped to tell us, but they have 
been thrown open by invading armies; and military leaders more mer- 
ciful than the ruthless inquisitors, have exposed to the gaze of an as- 
tonished world the scenes of alternate butchery and,debauch, in which 
the ghostly fathers have glutted, as they respectfully arose, their zeal 
and their lusts. The Bishop of Aire talks of ‘innocent victims whose 
numbers have been greatly exaggerated !’ But who is an innocent 
victim? one who is not a heretic? Then if a man be a heretic, he 
ought to be punished ! Yes— this is the conclusion necessarily. And 
then of the 150,000 who suffered in the Inquisition during fifty years, 
some were innocent victims ? Does not this very defence establish 
my proposition, viz: that there is no real liberty of person or of con- 
science under the Roman Catholic Religion? that to dissent is to be 
a guilty victim? And the alternative is submission to, or oppression 
by it ?, What is conclusive proof that the holy See sustains and ap- 


CONTROVERSY. 


309 


proves the Inquisition is this, that it never has uttered one word or 
taken one step to put it down, though one word would have done it 
Nay, so far from this, it has been the parent and the patron of it. 

The spirit of Romanism is a spirit of persecution. This is neces- 
sary to its nature. This I have shown at large heretofore, and you 
have struggled in vain through many a captious and artful page to 
avert the testimony of bulls, decrees, and historical evidence to that 
effect. 

The Church of Rome is the avowed enemy of the freedom of the 
press. I have proved this from the Pope’s circular letter. You have 
not denied this. I have showed its restrictions on the translation, 
printing, sale, and perusal even of God’s holy word. I have pointed 
you to the Standing Committee at Rome who watch and purify the 
press. But you find safety in silence. Let me present to you a de- 
cretal by the Lateran Council held at Rome. (Sess. 10. A. D. 1515, 
Leo X. presiding.) 

‘In the same session a decretal was issued concerning the printing 
of books, in the following form, viz: By order of the holy Council, we 
in fine, ordain and decree, that no person shall presume to print, or 
cause to be printed, any book or other writing whatsoever, either in 
our city (Rome) or in any other cities or diocesses, unless it shall fi.rst 
have been carefully examined, if in this city, by our Vicar and the 
master of the holy palace, or if in other cities and dioceses by the 
Bishop or his deputy, with the inquisitor of heretical pravity for tlje 
diocese, in which the said impression is about; to be made and unless 
also it shall have reeeived, under their own hand, their written approv- 
al, given without price and without delay. Whosoever shall presume 
to do otherwise, besides the loss of the books, which shall be publicly 
burned, shall be bound by the sentence of excommunication.’ (Ca- 
ranza,page 670.) By authority of the Council of Trent, this decre- 
tal and all others' of a like kind are thus confirmed, viz: Rule 1. ‘All 
books condemned by the supreme pontiffs, or general Councils, before 
the year 1515, and not comprised in the present Index, are, neverthe- 
less, to be considered as condemned.’ The creed also, as adopted by 
every Roman Catholic, requires all ‘to receive undoubtly, all thing de- 
livered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and General Coun- 
cils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent.’ These decre- 
tals, rules, &c. of Popes, and of Councils having been thus finally con- 
firmed by your last and great Council of Trent, are now in full force; 
they bind every Roman Catholic on earth; they involve anarticle of 
faith, and must be believed; they announce infallible law and must be 
obeyed; to reject them is heresy; to obey them brings ruin to civil li- 
berty; yet to the presenthour they are in full operation wherever the 
Pope has sway. Now you have this alternative, disclaim these de- 
crees, and you are not a Roman Catholic; defend them and you are a 
traitor to your country. Will you defend the dogmas of infallibility 
and Papal supremacy at such a price ? 

To make this despotism over thought complete, and conscious that 
truth and testimony were against the ‘Mother church’ the Holy See 
has applied its pruning knife to trim down the works which were al- 
lowed to appear, and even the writings of the ‘Fathers’ have been 


310 


CONTROVERSY 


erased, and amended to bring them into harmony with your doctrines 
and decrees. Evidence on this subject is both abundant and strong. 
Some of it I have adduced already; more is at hand, if you will meet 
me on this point Why you entirely evade the whole subject the pub- 
lic must, by this time, clearly understand. As it is a painful and de- 
licate topic it might almost seem a matter of mercy to let it slumber. 
I must be permitted, however, to name it to you as an item which con 
vinced the Reformers that truth was not your friend; that free inquiry 
would be the ruin of your church; and that liberty was to be sought 
in retiring from her iron grasp. At your pleasure we will examine 
this topic fully. 

Once more, civil liberty cannot flourish under the influence of the 
Church of Rome. It is to the Reformation we owe, under God, all 
the liberty now in the world. If you take the map of the world, and 
strike from it those states which are now eminently Protestant, how 
much civil liberty will remain? How much is their in Spain ? How 
much in Austria? Ha) w much in Portugal? How much in Italy? 
In this our one the power of the Pope is broken: his political conse- 
sequence is gone; and no wonder, fas is said in a letter lately written 
from Rome) it is currently foreboded in the eternal city that the pre- 
sent will be the last Pope. But where he reigns, and while he reigns, 
men cannot be free. It is impossible. Hence he must soon finally 
and irreparably fail; for he will not change and the system cannot 
long survive that inextinguishable love of liberty and growing light of 
knowledge, which the God of providence and truth is sending forth 
upon the nations. 

Here then are three leading errors in the doctrine as well as the 
practice of the Church of Rome, showing her manifest departure from 
the religion of Christ, and calling aloml for Reformation, justifying, 
nay, forcing a protest from every friend of truth. I suppose your dis- 
cretion will pass these by, as you have done the long catalogue of cog- 
nate errors already exposed in my previous letters. But our readers 
will notpass them; nor will your suffering cause find shelter in your 
silence. 

I now proceed to notice your attack on the ‘Protestant Religion.’ 

And 1st. You have admitted fully ('Letter No. 23. j ‘that what are 
called ‘orthodox’ tenets among Protestauts are all found in the Catho- 
lic Church;’ and ‘that the Reformers in going out from the church car- 
ried them forth,’ such as ‘the doctrine of the Trinity and divinity of 
the Son of God, the doctrine of original sin, and the atonement through 
the death ef Christ.’ ('See your letter, No. 23./ And ('in the same 
letter) ‘you admit, for argument sake, that the Religion of Christ, es- 
tablished in its purity by the Apostles, gradually became corrupt; and 
was finally restored to its primitive purity by the event called the Re- 
formation:’ you say ‘starting even from this extravagant supposition, 
you will find it a difficult task to prove that the Protestant Religion is 
the Religion of Christ.’ Now by the first admission Protestants are 
‘orthodox’ in certain ‘tenets,’ and in such, they agree with your church, 
for ‘they brought them out from her.’ By the second admission, the 
other tenets of your church being errors, it follows as an irresistible 
consequence, on your own principles, that ‘orthodox,’ ‘Protestants’ 


CONTROVERSY. 


311 


are the only true Christians in the world. For von admit that all we 
hul l, of* the truth, we got from you; and all you fiold which we refus- 
e ! to bring away is false; therefore, we hold ail this is true, and what 
we reject is false; hence the discussion, on your part is at an end. 

2. As to the character of the Reformers, your reasoning is ab* 
surd. 

If all you say of them is true, the case stands thus: They were 
fallible men; s > we hold them to have been ; an-! emerging from the 
i > lg night of darkness an 1 death which the Papacy had spread over 
Christen lorn, no won der if they had faults and errors too/ They are 
not our guides, bnt the Lord and his Apostles, speaking in the Bible. 
They were Reformers such as often appeared in the Old l’estan>ent 
Church, not to give a new religion but* to restore the old. We call no 
man ‘father’ and only follow them so far as they follow Christ. Sup- 
p >se they had all the defects you falsely charge on then, and held 
some opinions which were not true; yet as the Reformation was ne- 
cessary, and the religion of Protestants looks to the Bible as the on'y 
infallible rule of faith and practice, it affects us not. But with your 
Church it is far otherwise. A large party in it believes in the Pope ’3 
infallibility. This is especially the system of the Jesuits, and of Italy 
at large. Now o.i their principles your Chnrch is irreparably ruined. 
Fifty apostate Popes in one long black line, are mentioned, by one of 
vour writers; many Popes, Baronins tells us, were elected and ruled 
by strumpets ; divers others came in by Simony ; others still tilled by 
their bastard progeny, the highest offices of the Church ; some dealt 
in poison am! sorcery ; one sacrificed to idols; several Popes reigned 
at once ; a wo nan it’ is said once filled the Papal Chair ; and incest, 
debauchery, civil war, and unnumbered crimes characterized the holy 
See for more than a century. And, now, pray tell me, where was the 
infallible Head of the Church, and what sort of a Church was that 
which sustained, and follow ul such monsters of iniquity? But if 
you say the Pope was not infallible, (as surely you must,) what be- 
comes of vonr argument under the second qnestion, viz: ‘reviewing 
the doctrines and characters of the reformers, is there any, even the 
smallest evidence, that the Spirit of God had aught to do with it.?’ 
Yet this is your great argument against the Reformation! On your 
own showing then, the Church of Rome does not hold the Religion of 
Christ ; to protest was a right; and reformation was a duty. 

3. But you have grossly slandered the Reformers. 

In the first place, it is very remarkable, that in many cases you stu- 
diously omit all references by which your quotations can be identi- 
fied and exposed. In the next place, where you give the references, 

I have tried in vain to find some of the passages to which you refer. 
From this I cannot doubt but you quote second hand from Jesuit au- 
thors, with whom it is a duty to falsify when ecclesiastical utility 
requires it. In the third pi ice, your glaring perversion of Luther, 
which l exposed at the close of mv last letter, id a living monument . 
fro n which we learn how little reliance is to be placed on yw.irqnota- 
tiohs. 1 say this with regret; but what follows proves it necessary. 
In your Letter No. 23, you made Luther sav, ‘let this be your rule for 
3S 


312 


CONTROVEHST. 


interpreting the Scriptures ; whenever they command a good work 
do you understand that they forbid it;’ that is, Luthers rule was to 
contradict Scripture and encourage bad works ! Such was the lan- 
guage vou made him hold. I quoted in answer, (to which I refer the 
reader,) the whole passage, when lo ! we find the disjointed member 
of the sentence taking its place, honestly, and making Luther ur«;e 
good works in God’s strength, according to God's word, and to God's 
glory ! Pressed by the exposure, you venture in the last Letter (No. 
25,) to give a new version of you « quotation from Lull er, and tell us 
‘the sense of my quotation (from Luther) was to show that he denied 
free will in man, denied the possibility of keeping the command- 
ments, or of doing good works.’ This, truly, is strange self convic- 
tion! You first pervert his meaning, and then deny your own 
statement. Such is the process by which you would expose the 
Reformation ! Luther was but a man, and yet such a man as no 
slander can pull down. It is well for truth that he had other histo- 
rians besides my Rev. opponent. Erasmus says, (see Tom. 3. in Epist. 
ad Albert) ‘if 1 favour him, it is because he is a good man, a thing 
his very enemies acknowledge. This I observe that the best men are 
the least offended with his writings.’ Frederic, Duke of Saxon, said, 
‘Erasmus did truly.point out Luther’s two chief faults, that he med- 
dled with the Popes crown and the Monks bellies.’ Guiccard (His. 
Ital. 1. 13. p. 380.) tells us, ‘many conceive that the troubles raised 
against Luther, had their origin in I he innocency of his life and the 
soundness of his doctrine, rather than in any thing else;’ Sir James 
M‘Intosh says, of Luther, (see Hist, of England, chap. 5. vol. 2.) 
‘Martin Luther was a character thoroughly exempt from falsehood, 
dupli ity, and hypocrisy — it was fortunate also that the enormities of 
Tetzel, found Luther busied in the contemplation of the principle 
which is the basis of ail ethical judgment, and by the power of which 
he struck a mortal blow at superstition, \iz: ‘men are not made righ- 
teous by performing certain actions which are externally good; but 
men must have right principles in the first place, and then they will 
not fail to perform virtuous actions:’ the general terms which are here 
used, enunciate a proposition, equally certain and sublime, the basis 
of all pure ethics, the cement of the eternal alliance between moral- 
ity and religion. From the promulgation of this principle may be 
dated the downfall of superstition.’ And now shall we believe the 
illustrious historian or the interested priest? It were easy in the 
same way to defend the other honoured names, w hich you have held 
up, so falsely, to public infamy. We give the above only as a speci- 
men, and design hereafterto do justice to their characters and writ- 
ings. 

4. Your four questions are assuming the place of your ten heads, 
and are progressively meeting their fate. You seem to have no ideas 
beyond them, and by repeating them again and again, even after they 
are all answered, make it apparent, that you intend no defence of 
your doctrines, while you have little to say against our own. As to 
the Greek church, which is as ancient as your own, I did not, as you 
know claim her as agreeing with ourselves in all points; but stated, 
what you also know, that she protested against purgatory, human mer- 


CONTilOVEUSY • 


313 


its, supererogation, forbidding the use of the Scripture, worshipping 
images, the sale of masses, extreme unction and infallibility. So far 
you w ill allow she was a Protestant. Your remarks on the Walden- 
ses, are not worthy of notice. They entirely evade the abundant 
testimony brought by me, from your own writers. They contain noth- 
ing; and ex nihilo nihil fit. The dialogue with which you amuse your 
readers is unanswerable. You must have been reading Corderius’s 
Colloquies, or the ‘Courtship of Cock Robin and Jenny Wren? when 
its fine conception was first imparted to your mind! 

5. J he doctrinal unity of the Reformed, as expressed without col- 
lusion, and almost simultaneously is one of the most remarkable events 
in the history of the church. If, instead of cavilling over garbled ex- 
tracts from individual writers, you will take up these Formularies, 
which were published over Europe a! the commencement of the Re- 
formation, you may see in them the Protestant Religion. No less than 
twelve ot^ these, containing essentially the same doctrines, are now 
extant. Fhey are the Augustan, the Tetrapolitan, Polish, Saxon, Bo- s 
hemian, \Y ittemberg, Palatine, Helvetian, French, Dutch, English and 
Scotch Confessions. They issued at the call of God, from millions 
of minds in Germany, Switzerland, France, Holland, England, and 
Scotland. In due time, (and though you ridicule the sentiment which 
it conveys, yet let me say,j if God permit, I propose to show the es- 
sential harmony of many of these confessions with the word of God, 
with the earliest creeds, councils, fathers, and also with each other} 
and thus to display the Christianity, antiquity, and unity of the Pro- 
testant religion. In contrast with this shall be made to appear, still 
more, the total novelty of your peculiar doctrines, and the abounding 
variations ot Popery for 1 200 years. 

I terminate this letter with Bishop Jewel’s famous challenge, which 
never was accepted. *lf any learned man of our adversaries, or all 
the learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sen- 
tence out of any old Catholic doctor, or father, or general council, or 
Holy Scripture, or any one example in the primative church, whereby 
it may clearly and plainly be proved, during the first six hundred 
years, 1. that there were at any time any private masses in the world: 
2. or that there was then any communion ministered unto the people 
under one kind: 3. or that the people had their common prayer in a 
strange tongue that the people understood not: 4. or that the Bishop 
of Rome was then called an Universal Bishop, or head of the Uni- 
versal Church: 5. or that the people were then taught to believe that 
Christ’s body is really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or natural- 
ly present, in the sacrament: 6. or that his body is or may be in a 
thousand places or more at one time: 7. or that the priest did 
then hold up the sacrament over his head: 8. or that the people did 
fall down and worship it with godly honours: 9. or that the sacra- 
ment was then, or ought now to be, hanged up under a canopy: 10. or 
that in the sacrament after the words of consecration their remained 
only the substance, of the bread and wine: 1 1. or that when the priest 
divided the sacrament in three parts, and afterwards received him- 
self alone: 12. or that whoever had said the sacrament is a figure, a 
pledge, a token, or a remembrance of Christ’i body, had therefore 


CONTROVERSY. 


314 

been adjudged for in heretic: 13. or that it was lawful then to have 
thirty, twenty, fifteen, ten, or five masses said in the same churth in 
one day: 14. or that\ images were then set up in the churches to the 
inrent the people miVht worship them: 15. or that the lay-people were 
forbidden to read theiword of God in their own tongue: 16. or that it 
was then lawful for the priest, to pronounce the words of consecra- 
tion closely, or in pritate to himself: 17. or that the priest had then 
authority to offer up Christ unto his Father: 18. or to communicate 
and receive the Sacrament for another, as they do: 19. or to apply the 
virtue of Christ’s deathjand passion to any man by means of the Mass. 
20 or that it was then thought a sound doctrine to teach the people 
that Masses, ex opere operato, (that is upon account of the work 
wrought) is able to remove any part of our sins: 21 . or that any Chris- 
tian man called the Sacrament of the Lord, his God: 22 or that the 
people were then taught to believe that the body of Christ remaineth 
in the Sacrament as long as the accidents of bread and wine remain 
there without corruption: 23 or that a mouse, or any other worm or 
beast, may eat the body of Christ, (for some of our adversaries have 
said and thought:) 24. or that when Christ said hoc est corpum meum, 
f' this is my body ) the word hoc f'hisj pointed not the bread, but to an 
individutn vagum,as some of them say: 25 or that the accidents, or 
forms, or show's, of bread and wine be the Sacraments of Christ’s bo- 
dy and blood, and not rather the very bread wine itself: 26. or that 
the Sacrament is a sign or token of the body of Christ that lieth hid 
underneath it: 27. or that ignorance is the mother and cause of true 
devotion — The conclusion is, that I should then be content to yield 
and subscribe/ Yours, &c. 

Johi4 Breckikridge. 


CONTROVERSY. No. XXVII. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF 
CHRIST? 

Philadelphia , August 2, 1833. 

To the Rev John Breckinridge. 

Rev Sir , — I have just read jour last letter. It is remarkable for 
nothing, except a repetition of special pleading, petty sophistry, and, 
as usual, the evasion of the question at issue. It is superior, howe- 
ver, in style and good manners, (if not in argument) to most of its 
predecessors from the. same quarter. When I saw myself again ad- 
dressed by ‘Rev. Sir,’ which you had so long denied me, and marked 
the absence of deistical objection and flippant personality, I was 
tempted, for a moment, to question the identity of authorship. But 
this suspicion vanished from my mind the moment 1 read your clas- 
sical allusion to the ‘courtship of Cock Robin and Jenny VVren.’ 

It must have, long since, become manifest to every candid and sen- 
sible reader, that you utterly disregard the rules of this controversy, 
to the observance of which you were bound by your signature. How 
far this is honourable, l shall not take upon me to say. In the world, 
the man who makes an agreement and then violates, systematically, 
all its conditions, enjoys no enviable fame. ‘The rule of faith* and 
then the ‘Protestant religion* were the questions to be discussed, suc- 
cessively. ‘And the paities agree respectively, to adhere strictly to 
the subject of discussion for the time being, and to admit no second 
question until the first shall have been exhausted.’ If, as appears, 
you did not intend to fulfi 1 t is part of the agreement, 1 am at a loss 
to account for your having entered into it. As it is, however, no as- 
sertion of mine is necessary to show that you have given up your rule 
of faith, and that you shrink from the defence of the Protestant re- 
ligion. On the former topic, the amount of your six months labour 
is this, that the Bible is the infallible rule to all those who are fortu- 
nateenough to arrive at the true sense of it. But that private inter- 
pretation, when it extracts from the sacred ynlume a wrong meaning 
is an ‘abuse.’ And that relatively to all who are guilty of this abuse) 
even the Bible is not an infallible rule ! ! Thus the infallibility of the 
Bible itself as a rule is made to evaporate under the chemical influ- 
ence of your arguments. Every peculiar system of Protestantism 
looks upon itself as being the system of the Bible, and whilst each 
retorts upon the othei the abuse of the written word of God, !p. 
Breckinridge, pleading in the name of all, bears testimony that those 
who are guided by the true sense of the Bible are ‘infallibly right,’ 


CONTROVERSY. 


313 

but that those who with equal sincerity miss the true sense, are infal- 
libly wrong. Still he asserts that the Bible alone, interpreted by each 
individual for himself is ‘the infallible rule of taith appointed by 
Christ.’ 

As to the other question, it also, has been virtually abandoned. — 
The reader must have observed that you find yourself unable to ans- 
wer my questions. I asked you to define the Protestant religion; and 
you could not tell me what it is. Arguments and authorities were ad- 
duced to show that it it could not be the religion of Christ, and no at- 
tempt has been made to refute the arguments, or question the authri- 
ties taking from the writings of the Reformers themselves. You say 
you cannot find the quotations, and insinuate that they are spuri- 
ous. This inclines me to believe that they were new to you, and that 
you are not so conversant with the theological discoveries of the 16th 
century as l had supposed. But if you will only take the trouble to 
designate the particularpassage quoted in my letters which you can- 
not find, and call it spurious, l shall have great pleasure in marking 
the page and leaving the original work at the Coffee house or any 
other public place for your inspection and that of the public. 

In the mean time, 1 shall place my unanswered questions touching 
the pretended divinity of the Protestant religion on record, and keep 
them as a standing advertisement. If they cannot be answered, Pro- 
testants whose love of truth, is greater than their hatred of the Catho- 
lic religion will see how baseless is the fabric of their belief. They 
will reflect how dangerous is their position, since they can find no 
Christians agreeing with them in doctrines, from the days of Christ 
until the coming of Luther, and very few since. 

Mr. Breckinridge says that 'the Protestant is the religion of 
Christ .’ 

if so, I call upon him 1st. To tell me what the Protestant religion is ? 

2: 1 call upon him to say what society of Christians ever taught 
this pretended * religion of Christ previous to the Reforma- 
tion i? 

3. I call upon him to shy, whether Christ revealed all the doc- 
trines of the Protestant religion, beginning with the image 
of his church , Episcopalianism, and terminating with the 
must consistent of Protestant sects, the Unitarians ? — and if 
not, how many denominations out of the whole belong to the 
true Protestant religion, the religion of Christ ? 

4. I call upon him to show whether the Reformers received any 
new ministeral authority, after the withdrawal of that which 
they had received from the church ? 

5. 1 call upon him, in case no such new authority was received, 
to show that the Protestant clergy, so called, have any divine 
right to exercise the Christian ministry, more than other ed- 
ucated laymen ? 

These are the questions by which the touchstone of truth will be 
applied to the divinity of the Protestant religion. If it can stand 
this test, you will gain the point, but if not, it will be impossible to 
conceal tne deception. 


CONTROVERSY. 


31 f 

Let Princeton, and all the clergy set about the solution of these dif- 
ficulties; which stand between the Protestant Religion and the Reli- 
gion of Christ. They are too well founded, as you cannot but know, 
in the principles of Christian theology to be overturned by ridicule. 
You cannot take them up one after another, and give that unequivo- 
cal reply, which would satisfy any mind serously disposed to inquire 
for the truth. And so long as you will not attemptit, then they stand, 
cutting short the claims of the Protestant Religion to be what you 
said it was; the Religion of Christ. To allow you time to ruminate 
on these difficulties of your position, l shall now proceed to show that 
the doctrine of the Eucharist as held in the Catholic Church, is an 
integral part of the Christian Religion; and that Protestants in reject- 
ing it, have deprived themselves of the last and be9t pledge of a Re- 
deemer’s love. This Sacrament, which by Protestants is called the 
Lord’s Supper, was instituted on the night on which he was betrayed, 
the eve of his passion, as if he would select that moment, for the 
most sublime exercise of his Divine charity and omnipotence. Is it 
then an article of C hristian Revelation that the body and blood of 
Christ are contained in the Catholic Sacrament of the Eucharist? — 
This is the question; for as to the mystery of doctrine it is not greater 
than those of the Incarnation, Trinity, or Deity of Jesus Christ. Has 
it been revealed? In answer to this question we will have to exam- 
ine the evidences. 

It is remarkable, that among Protestants, those sects whose found- 
ers had never been raised to the order of Priesthood in the Catholic 
Church, were the most disposed to reject the reality of Christ’s pre- 
sence in the Eucharist Luther maintained this doctrine till hisdeath; 
the first bishops and clergy of the English Government Church, 
maintained, or at least pretended to maintain it, in like manner. — 
Whereas Calvin, who, though brought up a Catholic, was not a Priest, 
rejected it from the first, conscious that the priestly ordination was 
necessary to consecrate the species. Still, Rev. Sir, even in your 
Presbyterian Confession of Fa>th, which has not been ‘amended’ since 
the year 1821, there is much mystery and much to impress upon the 
untutored communicant an idea that he is receiving someting more 
than mere bread and wine. ‘Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he 

was betrayed, instituted the Sacrament of his body anti blood’ 

(page 124.) ‘Worthy receivers, outwardly partakers of the visible el- 
ements in this Sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and 
indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and 
feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and 
blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under 
the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith 
of believers in that ordinance, as the elements are, to their outward 
senses.’ (Page 12 r~8.) 

On the same page it is said, that unworthy receivers ‘are guilty of 
the body and blood of the Lord to their own damnation’ — and that 
without great sin they ‘cannot partake of these holy mysteries.’ 

Here then is a strange compound of double-meaning language ‘out- 
ward elements’— ‘body and blood of Christ’ — ‘spiritual feeding’ — 
•not discerning the body of the Lord’— ‘holy mysteries’— connected 


319 


CONTROVERSY 


with what ? With the belief of a real presence? not at all; but with 
a piece of bread and a cup of wine, over which an unauthorised min- 
ister has pronounced an abortive benediction ! ! The blessing of the 
ministry produces no change whatever, ami if I understand the lan- 
guage of your creed, the bread and wine, received with the same dis- 
positions any where, are as much the Sacrament of the body and blood 
of Christ, as they are after a fruitless and inoperative blessing in the 
Presbyterian church or meeting-house. The communicant is taught 
that lie receives nothing but bread and wine; and yet, that in being 
guilty of bread and wine, he is guilty of the body and blood ofChrist; 
for not discering what has no existence, viz; the body of the Lord in 
bread and wine ! ! What is the meaning then of r II this strange lan- 
guage ? This affectation of a real presence, with the simultaneous 
denial of it, and the positive doctrine of a real absence. But take it 
altogether, I find it quite as unintelligible as the Catholic dogma of 
the Eucharist. 

The same kind of mysterious double meaning hangs round the sa- 
cramental bread and wine of all the other Protestant denominations. 
The people generally, imposed upon, by this language, have a vague 
idea, in spite of their teachers, that, in receiving the Sacrament of the 
Lord’s Supper, they receive something more than mere bread and 
wine. 

When the Reformation, as it is called, of the 1 6th century set about 
rending the seamless and unbroken garment of- the Church, (which 
amidst the corruptions of the age, the vices of the people, and the 
scandals of degenerate ecclesiastics, still preserved the ‘one I ord, 
one faith, and one baptism,’ which she had received from her divine 
founder,) the work of sacrilege was carried on with such daring ir- 
regularity, that even the form of ‘casting lots’ was dispensed with 

Luther first raised the standard of error; and set the whole Christian 
world at shameless defiance. His example and doctrines encouraged 
others to bolder innovations; and it was riot long after his attempt to 
drag the Pope, from the seat of his spiritual supremacy, when a broth- 
er Reformer undertook, by a similar license to drag the Saviour of the 
world, from the throne of his divinity. But the denial of the leal 
presence, had escaped the father of the Reformation, and was reserv- 
ed for the famous or rather infamous Carlostadius. He began by teach- 
ing that when Christ said, ‘this is my body,’ he pointed to himself as 
he sat at the table; and not the eucnaristic species which he gave to 
the Apostles. On this, he quarrelled with Luther; married a woman; 
made war on education; joined himself for a time to the fanatical 
Ana baptists under Nicholas Stork; wandered about through Germa- 
ny for several years, and finally died at Basle in 1541. Melancthon 
describes him as an impious and brutal fellow, and testifies that he 
broached this error, out of jealousy and hatred of Luther. (In Epist. 
ad Mycon.) Zuinglius embraced the doctrine of Carlostadius, at:d 
fought the battles of his party against the ‘Kcclesiasters of Wittem- 
burg,’ with great fury and success. Hence it was that Luther de fir- 
ed byway of funeral oration on the his brother Reformer; ‘Zuinglius 
is dead and damned, having desired like a thief and a rebel to com- 
pel others to follow his error,’ viz; the denial of the real presence in 


CONTROVERSY. 


31* 

the Eucharist. In fact Zuinglius draws a:errible character of him- 
selt. ‘I cannot,’ says he, ‘conceal the tire rhat burns me, and drives 
me on to incontinence, since it is true that its effects have already 
drawn on me but too many infamous reprcaches among the churches.’ 
(In Parenses. ad Helvet. Tom. 1. d. 1 13 ) 

The controversy about the real presence between the Lutherans 
and Zuinglians was in this fervid condition when a new personage 
made his appearance on the theatre of the Reformation. John Cau- 
vin, or Calvin, born in 1509, and instructed in Protestantism by his 
teacher of Greek, Wolmar, was destined to throw Zuinglius in the 
shade, and to rival if not eclipse the great Luther himself. He pub- 
lished the text book of Calvinism, called the ‘Institutions,’ at Basle, 
near the grave of Carlostadius. He denied the Teal presence.’ Be- 
coming master at Geneva, his disciples denied it also — for Calvin was 
a man whose infallibility was not to be disputed, except at the risk 
of the stake and faggot. It was from Geneva that the Church of En- 
gland derived her present doctrine on the Eucharist, during the 
golden days of her ‘Calvinistic articles’ to which Doctor Miller allu- 
ded, as quoted in a former letter, with such triumphant reference — 
telling us that they (the Calvinistic articles) had kept the English 
Church almost pure, for nearly one hundred years. Wise men, how- 
ever, sometimes see the same objects in very different aspects. Bish- 
op Bancroft, in reference to the same Calvinistic derivation of 
doctrine, says, ‘Happy, a thousand times happy, our island, if neither 
English or Scot had ever put foot in Geneva, if they had never be- 
come acquainted with a single individual of these Genevese Doctors.’ 
(Survey of pretended Holy Discipline.) 

Here then is the course and brief history of the Protestant doc- 
trine — rejecting the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. From 
America we trace it to England ; from England to Geneva ; from 
Geneva to Basle ; from Switzerland to Germany, where, according 
to Melancthon, it originated with the ‘brutal fellow’ Carlostadt, who 
broached it out of pure hatred to Luther. The circumstances under 
which this warfare was commenced, at the Black Bear, where Luther 
lodged, are so disgraceful and profane, that I shall pass them over in 
silence. The curious reader may consult the recent work of Thomas 
Moore, chapter xlvi. 21-1, where the references are given. The war 
of the sacrament being once declared among the Reformers, became 
the source of deadly strife, duplicity, stratagem, and intrigue among 
the belligerents. ‘In vain,’ says the writer, to whom I have just re- 
ferred, ‘did Bucer by tricks and evasions, and it is painful to add, 
Melancthon, succeeded in maintaining for a time, a false and fever- 
ish truce between the parties. But arts so gross could not long con- 
tinue to deceive; all compromise was found to be hollow and hopeless, 
and, at last the three great eucharistic factions, the Lutheran. Calvin- 
istic, and Zuinglian, all broke loose in their respective directions of 
heresy — each branch again subdividing itself into new factious dis- 
tinctions, under the countless names of Panarii, Accidentarii, Corpo- 
rarii, Anabonarii, Tropistce, Metamorphistce, Iscariotistce, Schwen- 
kenfeldians, ike. &c. &c. till, to such an extent did the caprice of 
private judgment carry its freaks, on this solemn subject, that an 


CONTROVERT?. 


m 

author of Bellarmine’s time, counted no less than two hundred 
different opinions on the! words, ‘This is my body.’ Thus the 
Protestants in attempting to escape the ‘hard saying,* ; which gave 
offence to the Caphaarnitei found themselves unable to agree on any 
other explanation. Hencejjthe duplicity of the language in which it 
19 expressed in most of thJ Protestant formularies, of which your 
Confession, as amended in 1821, furnishes no mean specimen. 

Protestants, therefore, cailtrace their doctrine of the sacrament, in 
which, according to their bo.'Jks, Christ is really present, and really 
absent at the same time — as tar back as 1524, toi'arlostadt, to whom 
belongs the glory of having originated it. Beyond him, all believed 
in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. You have been 
bold enough, Rev. Sir, in u tteij ignorance, or in utter contempt of 
Christian antiquity and the testimony of innumerable writers, to 
assert that our belief was introduced in the 13th century, A. !>. 1215. 
Even this, however, shows tbat'it was the general faith for 300 years 
before the Reformation. But ltd us see whether the doctrine had not 
been believed in every age fron^the days of Christ. Now, Rev. Sir, 
if this doctrine of the real presence and transubstanfiation, be ‘as 
young,’ to use your own language, as 1215, how does it happen that 
the Berengarians wrote against it nearly two hundred years before it 
was born? How does it happen that Scotus S 4 'ridenus had written 
against it, in the reign of Charles the Bald, some two hundred years 
before Rerengarius?--And that the schismafical held it before their 
separation from the church in the 9th century — and continue to hold 
it to this day? How comes it that the Paulician Heretics of the 7th 
century rejected transubstantiation, if, as you learnedly assert, tran- 
substantiation was no- known in the church until the year \ 2 1 5? 
How was it that the Manichseans rejected this doctrine in the 3d 
century? And approaching nearer stili to the pure fountain of 
Christian faith, how is it that the Gnostic heretics denied it in the very 
first age of the church? These heretics professed to believe in Jesus 
Christ, and his doctrine, propounded by their private judgment. 
They hold that Jesus Christ suffered only in appearance, and that it 
was not his real flesh but a fantastical body, which suffered and bled 
on the cross. It seems that they also had an unaccountable aversion 
to the doctrine of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, 
and this too, if we may believe Mr. Breckenridge, 1 200 years before 
that doctrine was introduced! fet. Ignatius says of them in the very 
first century ‘they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, be- 
cause they do not acknowledge the Eucharist to be the flesh of our 
Saviour Jesu9 Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father 
by his goodness resuscitated. 5 Rejecting, therefore, this gift of God, 
they die in their disputes. (Ep. ad Smyrn. p. 36. Tom. ii. P. P. A post! 
Amstelmdami 1724,5 Here, the father makes the flesh of our Saviour 
Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist to be identically the same, which suffer- 
ed on the cross, and rose from the dead. Jesus Christ had equally 
identified his flesh in both. ‘This is my body which is given for you— 
Thisis my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many.’ 
It was not bread that was given neither was it wine that was shed tor 
many. Now these Gnostics would not have abstained from the Pro- 


CONTROVERSY, 


321 


tenant Eucharist of mere broad and wine. There is nothing in it 
that wonid have oflenried them. But they were offended at the Catho- 
lic doctrine of the real presence of the flesh of Christ in the sacrament. 
It clashed with their heresy, and therefore they abstained from it. 
How then Rev. Sir, could you have exposed yourself so far as to 
assert that our doctrine on this subject originated in the 13th century, 
when even the wanderings of the human mind, in the mazes of heresy 
during all the preceding ages of the church prove its existence from 
the very origin of Christianity, and since it is known to every man 
acquainted with ecclesiastical history, that in rejecting it, Carlostadt 
only renewed the errors of the Docetce and other branches of the 
Gnostic heresy broached and branded in the Apostolic age itself. To 
this heresy we are indebted for the evidence thus furnished of the 
primitive belief of the real presence of Christ in the mystery of the 
Eucharist. ‘There must be heresies,’ said the Apostle, ‘that they also 
who are approved among you may be made manifest.’ (1 Cor. xi 19.) 

To the same cause we are indebted, for another brilliant but appa- 
rently accidental testimony in the second century. St. Irenseus who 
was trained in the doctrine of the Redeemer, by St. Polycarp, the 
disciple of St. John, uses the real presence of Christ in the Eucha- 
rist, as an argument against other heretics of his time, who denied the 
resurrection of the flesh. He compares it with the manner in which 
the vine and wheat are propagated, to furnish the matter of the Eu- 
charist before the consecration. ‘And as,’ says he, ‘a section of the 
vine laid in the earth produces fruit in due season, and in like man- 
ner the grain of corn is multiplied, by the blessing of God, which 
afterwards is used lor the benefit of man, and receiving on it the word 
of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ: 
so our bodies nourished by that Eucharist, and then laid in the earth, 
and dissolved in it, shall in due time rise again.’ (Iren, ydver. Har. 
L. V* c. II. p. 395, 397, 399.) Tertullian in like manner says, ‘our 
flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be 
nourished with God.’ (i)e Resurrectione Carriis, chap. viii. p.459.) 
In the third century, Origen speaking of the doctrine of the church, 
says, ‘In former times, Baptism was obscurely represented in the 
cloud, and in the sea; but now regeneration is in kind, in water and 
the Holy Ghost. Then, obscurely, manna was the food; but now in 
kind, the flesh of the word of Cod is the true food; even as he said, 
my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.’ (Horn. vii. 
in Num. Tom. ii. p. 2S0.) 

In the 4th century among a host of others, take St. Cyril of Jeru- 
salem: ‘the bread and wine,’ says he, ‘which before the invocation of, 
the adorable Trinity, were nothing but bread and wine, become, after 
this invocation, the body and blood of Christ.’ (Catech. Mystag. L. 
N. 4. p. 281.) Shall l multiply these quotations? It is necessary, 
but I will give you the testimony of the great first Reformer himself, 
to show the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’ on the subject of the 
Eucharist, and to show the extent of the delusion under which Pro- 
testants, and perhaps their ministers, labour when they ascribe th$ 
origin of this doctrine to your famous epoch, ‘1215.’ 


CONTROVERSY . 


382 

He is defending his own opinion against those, who making use of 
the liberty which he had promulgated, of expounding the Scriptures 
by their own judgment, denied the real or corporeal presence. ‘That 
no one among the fathers. 5 says Luther, numerous as they are, should 
have spoken of the Eucharist, as those men do, is truly astonishing. 
Not one of them speaks thus: there is only bread and wine: or, the 
body and blood of Christ are not present. And, when we reflect how 
often the subject is treated and repeated by them, it ceases to be cre- 
dible; it is not even possible; that, not so much as once, such words 
as these should have dropped from some of them. Surely it was of 
moment, that men should not be drawn into error. Still they all 
speak with such precision, evinciug that they entertained no doubt ol 
the presence of the body. and blood! Had not this been their convic- 
tion, can it be imagined that, anong so many, the negative opinion 
should not have been uttered on a single occasion? On other points 
this was not the case. But our sacramentarians, on the other hand, 
eari proclaim only the negative or contrary opinion. * These men, 
then to say all in one word, have drawn their notions neither from 
the Scriptures nor the Fathers. 5 (Defensio verborum — Ccense, Tom. 
VIII. p. 391. Edit. Wittemb. 1557*) 

Such is the testimony of Martin Luther, who elsewhere speaks of 
the Eucharist as the ‘Adorable Sacrament. 5 He tried with all his 
might to discard this belief, chiefly, as he tells us, because by so doing 
he should greatly vex the Pope. ‘If Carlostadt, or any one else, 5 says 
he, ‘could five years ago have convinced me, that in the sacrament 
there is nothing but bread and wine, he had wonderfully obliged me! 
For with great anxiety did I examine this point, and labour with all 
my force to get clear of the difficulty; because by this means I very 
well know £hat I should terribly incommode the Papacy. But I find 
I am caught without hopes of escaping. For the text of the Gospel 
is so clear and strong, that it will not easily admit of a misconstruc- 
tion. 5 (Epist. ad Amic. Argia. Tom. 7. p. 5e2* Witt. Ed.) 

What is this text of the Gospel by which Luther ‘found himself 
caught without hopes of escaping? 5 We may suppose in the first 
place, the language of St. Paul, who received his doctrine of the 
Eucharist by a special revelation from Jesus himself, after the ascen- 
tion; which would have been unnecessary if it merely taught him the 
Protestant mystery, viz: that bread and wine are bread and wine. He 
taught that men, by the unworthy reception of the sacrament were 
guilty ©f judgment, or damnation to themselves; ‘not discerning the 
body of the Lord. 5 (1 Cor. x. 1 6, and following verses.) Now, if the 
body of Christ was not in the Sacrament, how could men ‘discern it 
there? Again, it is to be admitted that Jesus Christ would not be 
guilty of duplicity in the teaching of his doctrines. When, after the 
miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes, he introduced 
(John vi.) the doctrine of the bread from heaven, even his own flesh 
and blood, to be miraculously multiplied for the life of the world, the 
Protestants who heard him, were scandalised; they exclaimed then, as 

they exclaim still, ‘this is a hard saying, and who can hear it and 

many of them then, as now on account of it, ‘went back and walked 
no more with him. 5 He declared that he would give them his flesh to 


controversy. 


323 


eat; they understood him to mean his flesh; and in the unbelieving 
spirit of Protestantism they inquire ‘how can this man give us his 
flesh to eat.’ This was the moment for the Son of God to have un- 
deceived them, by telling them that he did not mean his flesh, but 
merely some bread and wine. This doctrine would not have surpris- 
ed them. But instead of softening it, by explanation, he confirmed 
the first declaration by adding ‘Amen, Amen, 1 say unto you; unless 
you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall 
not have life in you. He thateateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, 
hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. For my 
flesh is meat indeed; and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth 
my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him. (verses 
54, 55, 56,57.) Now if those Protestant disciples who were scan- 
dalized at this language of Our Lord, had misunderstood his meaning, 
was he not bound to remove from their minds the erroneous impres- 
sion wlpch his own words had produced? Did he use this language 
to drive them away from him? Did he, who would leave the ninety- 
nine in the desart to go after the one which had been lost; did he, I 
say, banish the sheep already in the fold, from the pastures of life, by 
speaking of ‘flesh and blood,’ (to be communicated in a mysterious 
manner, which as yet he had not revealed,) and allowing them to un- 
derstand ‘flesh and blood,’ if he meant only ‘bread and wine?’ Pro- 
testants are obliged to admit that he did; and this admission so injurious 
tr the character of Jesus Christ, is the first implement borrowed by the 
Deists to sap the foundations of Christianity. If Christ’s meaning 
had been that which Carlostadt invented for the Protestants, would 
he not have removed or explained the difficulty about'giving his flesh 
to eat,’ instead of confirming it, with emphasis of repeated and solemn 
affirmation? Would he not have said, ‘Amen, Amen, I say unto you, 
unless you eat the bread of the Son of man and drink his wine, you 
shall not have life in you. He that eateth my bread and drinketh 
my wine hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last 
day. For my bread is meat indeed, and my wine is drink indeed. 
He that eateth my bread and drinketh my wine, abideth in me and I 
in him.’ Jf he had said or meant this, we should not have heard of 
those Protestant disciples, ‘who went back and walked no more with 
him.’ In almost every verse of the chapter he reproaches them, not 
for misunderstanding his words, but for the want of belief. But they 
would have misunderstood him, if his meaning had been bread and 
wine, and in that case too we are unable to conceive how faith is ne- 
cessary to believe that bread and wine, are bread and wine. He sopke 
of his flesh and blood; he meant his flesh and blood; all that heard 
him, understood him to have spoken of his flesh and blood; and when 
the Protestants of that day, frightened by the ‘how can this man give 
us his flesh to eat,’ ‘went back and walked no more with him;’ he 
turned to the twelve and ‘said unto them, will ye also go away?’ And 
Simon Peter answered him (in the name of all) Lord to whom shall 
we go? — thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed, 
and have known that thou art the Christ the Son of the living God.’ 
(68, 69, 70.) Peter understood the mystery proposed in this discourse 
of Christ, as little as the rest, but he believed as Catholics do, that 


324 


CONTROVERSY. 


Christ could not deceive; and therefore he withstood the "honest, 
common -sense interpretation, lauded by mv Rev’d opponent, and 
urged with great plausibility, against Jesus Christ himself, by the 
Protestants of Capharnaum. 

What was spoken in this chapter, is actually accomplished in the 
institution of the holy eucharist. ‘And whilst they were at supper, 
Jesus took bread, ane blessed and broke, and gave to his disciples; and 
said, 'lake ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he 
gave thanks; and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this 
is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many for 
the remission of sins.’ (Math, xxvi. 26, 27, 28.) ‘And whilst they 
were eating, Jesus took bread and blessing broke, and gave to them, 
and said: Take ye, this is my body. And having taken the chalice, 
giving thanks, he gave it to them, and they a!! drank of it. And lie 
said to them: ‘This is my blood of the New Testament, which shall 
be shed for many.’ (Mark xiv. 22, 23, 24 ) ‘And taking bread he 
gave thanks, and brake, and gave to them, saying: This is my body 
which is given for you: Do this for a commemmoration of me. In 
like manner* the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: this is the 
chalice, the New Testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.’ 
(Luke xxii. 19, 20.) ‘For 1 have received of the Lord, that also which 
1 delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, the night in which he was 
betrayed, took bread qnd gave thanks, broke and said; take ye and 
eat: This is my body which shall be delivered for you: do this for a 
commemmoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he 
had supped, saying: this is the chalice, the New Testament in my 
blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink it, for a commemoration 
of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink this chal- 
ice, you shall show forth the death of the Lord, till he come. Where- 
fore whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this chalice of the Lord 
unworthily shall beguilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But 
let a m’an prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink 
of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthly, eateth 
and drinketh judgement to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.’ 
( 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24,^25, 26, 27, 28, 29 ) 

Now according to the Protestant doctrine of the eucharist, whene- 
ver the word ‘body and blood’ occurs in these passages, we are to un- 
derstand ‘bread and wine.’ Consequently, since Christ spoke of the 
chalice as of the ‘blood, which was to be shed for many for the remis- 
sion of sins,’ we are to understand that we have been redeemed by 
the giving of bread and the shedding of wine. There is po escaping 
this consequence, on the Protestant principle. Having showing above 
that the Protestant doctrine of the eucharist, denying the real pre- 
sence, originated in the hatred and jealousy which the fame of Luther, 
roused in the breast of his would-be rival, Carlostadt, fas Melancthon 
testifies, — having shown by the testimony of the holy Fathers, that the 
Catholic doctrine of the real presence was held by the church, and 
rejected Dy the heretics of the firstage — that is 1200 years before the 
date assigned by Mr. Breckinridge — I shall allude briefly to the ruin- 
ous bearing which the Protestant eucharist has on the the divinity of 
Christ, and the whole system of Christianity. 


CONTROVERSY. 


3 US 

1. Of all the wonders operated by Jesus in the institution of his 
religion the only one which a mere creature deputed by God could 
rw)t accomplish is that which subsists in the real presence, in the eu- 
charist. This doctrine then is the shield of his divinity. He might 
have accomplished all the miracles that Protestants believe of him, 
and yet be nothing more than what the Socinians represent; — but to 
accomplish the miracle which we contemplate, not with the eye of the 
body, but with the eye of faith, in the mystery of the holy eucharist 
— he must have been God. To creatures deputed by God, some pow- 
er was given, but to Christ all power both in heaven and on earth — 
and it was in the eucharist alone that this all power was exercised — 
This connexion between the real presence in the eucharist, and the 
Divinity of ‘the word,’ was quoted by St. Ireneeus iti the 2d century. 
(Adv. Hor. L. 4. c. 18. No. 4.) 

2. Jesiis Christ must have foreseen the terrible consequence of the 
language he made use of in reference to the eucharist. He must have 
foreseen the error, into which his immediate disciples were about to 
fall, and which was tube entailed on the church until the coming of 
Andreas Carlostadius — who to refoj in the church, merely invented a 
new gesture for Christ, making him point to his own breast, when he 
said ‘this is my body. ? Did Christ foresee this supposed error of the 
real presence? if he did, it being founded on his own express 
words, he was bound by his promise to the church (Math, xxvii. 19.) 
to prevent it becoming general: — if he did not foresee it — then goes 
his divinity by the board. When the Unitarians urge this argument, 
how can the other Protestants answer it ? 

3. The Apostles warned the Christians of future errors, such as 
the denial of the reality of the flesh of Christ, his divinity, and the 
resurrection, Cxc. Put against the supposed error of the real presence 
of Christ in the Eucharist, which according to the acknowledgment 
of eminent Protestants was believed from the second century, they 
take no precaution; though according to the Protestant doctrine of 
bread and wine, it changed the Religion of Christ into a religion of 
impiety. 

4. According to the Protestant hypothesis, the Religion of Christ 
became the falsest religion of earth, and what he preached, was per- 
verted into a system ol' idolatry almost immediately after his ascen- 
sion into heaven. Did the eternal Son of God, become man, to estab- 
lish a religion so short lived, so degenerate, and so idolatrous as this 
supposes.” Christians adored Christ’s body in the Eucharist; and if 
the Eucharist were mere bread and wine; it follows, that from the be- 
ginning the followers of the cross were idolators. Such are the de- 
structive consequences, if the Protestant doctrine were true. 

But on the other hand, admit the doctrine of the church — bend the 
stubborn neck of what you call ‘honest common sense interpretation.’ 
to the yoke of faith, believe that Jesus Christ has love to design and 
omnipotence to accomplish what he declared— this is my body— this 
is my blood — and you will escape the horrible consequences of the 
Protestant system. Then you will recognise ‘the hidden manna,’ in 
the sacrament, — the wisdom of God, in mystery. Then you will un- 
derstand the meaning of ‘Christ, a Priest forever according to the or- 


CONTROVERSY. 


326 

derof -Melchesidec.’ Then you will understand the connexion be- 
tween this priesthood — communicated at the last supper, ‘do this for 
a commemoration of me,’ — and the ‘altar of which they have no right 
to eat who serve the tabernacle;’ — you will perceive the ‘clean ^offer- 
ing,’ from the rising to the setting of the sun, among the Gentiles, as 
foretold by Malachy, (i. 10, II,) and in the sacrifice of the mass, the 
death of the Lord, in the language of St. Paul, shown forth till he 
come.’ Then you will find your faith according with the language 
and institution of Christ, the apostle of the Gentiles, the apostolical 
fathers, the whole Christian church of all nations and ages, except a 
few straggling sects of heretics in the by-ways of antiquity. Then 
order, beauty, consistency, and stateliness will appear in the edifice of 
Christianity. But deny the Real Presence, and it will experience the 
fate of Jerusalem — not a stone shall be left upon a stone. Protestant 
Germany at the present day, is the sad proof that what f have here 
asserted, is not speculation, but history. But who can believe such a 
doctrine? 1 answer, all those who deem Jesus Christ worthy of be* 
lief. That infidels should disbelieve it does not surprise me. But I 
cannot understand it ? I answer, you can understand it as well as you 
can the Trinity — or the union of the divine and human nature in the 
person of Jesus Christ. When you study mathematics you reason — 
but in revelation you believe. But is it possible that Jesus Christ can 
be seated at the right hand in heaven, and yet be whole and entire un- 
der each of the consecrated hosts in the world ? 1 answer, Jesus Christ 
is God — he has said so, and therefore it is possible, and infallibly cer- 
tain. But think of the indignities to which he is exposed ? I ans- 
wer, that they are not greater than those which he suffered when he 
was sold by his disciples, buffeted anil spit upon by his people, scourg- 
ed, and crucified. His body in the sacrament can suffer no more — 
can die no more — it is the glorified body of the cross, still offered up 
to perpetuate the sacrifice of Calvary in a different manner — to ‘show 
forth the death of the Lord till he come.’ But if an insect or rep- 
tile consume the host? I answer, the cousequence is nothing more 
horrible' than if an insect or reptile consumed some portion of the 
adorable blood which flowed from his wound as he hung upon the 
cross. But if arsenic be mixed in the elements of the enucharist 
they still remain after the consecration? 1 answer, that Christ ap- 
pointed bread and wine, to be operated on the words of consecration 
— and not arsenic. But Mr. Breckinridge says that this doctrine is 
‘as young as the year 1215 ? I answer, that if Mr. Breckinridge says 
queer things, it is for himself and those who sympathise in his pre- 
judices to see to it. But he says also that if this doctrine be true, we 
cannot believe our senses? I answer, that St. Ambrose refuted this 
objection 1400 years ago, (De Initiandis cix. Tom. IV. p. 350, 351 ) 
And that Mr. B. must have forgotten both his natural philosophy and 
his New' Testament when he repeated it. The senses judge only of 
appearances — and we read in a book which Protestants profess to re- 
spect that the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a dove. 

There is no end, however, to objections. Objections against the 
real presence, the Incarnation, the resurrection of the body, the Tri- 
nity of persons in the Godhead, and the immorality of the soul are 


CONTROVERSY. 


3 

equally numerous, and equally plausible, if that very thing and noth* 
ing which my liev. opponent cal Is ‘honest, common -sense interpret i* 
tion,’ is to be the arbiter of belief. Who can comprehend any of 
them? There are nevertheless one or two objections common among 
Protestants from whom we might expect better things, and which I 
shall here notice as well for their want of truth, as their want of de- 
cency. Catholics are represented as adoring bread and wine in the 
Eucharist, which is expressed by calling the sacrament a ‘Wafer.’— 
'Phis ungenerous trick of our opponents is unworthy of Christians. 
They know that we adore no ‘wafer,’ that our adoration is directed 
to Jesus Christ, believed to be truly present under the appearances of 
bread and wine. But I lament to have read in the course of this 
correspondence the expressions, ‘that we make our God and eat him,’ 
it sounds like the buffoonery of 'Pom Paine. It is unworthy of a 
Christian origin, and I leave it even to sensible Protestants whether 
a doctrine resting on the arguments of this letter should have been 
treated of in language so coarse, and so indecent. Mow many gross 
questions may not the infidels ask touching the sacred person of Je- 
sus Christ, by imitating the licentious pen of a zealous, but indis- 
creet, polemic. Such language shocks the feelings, but does not 
touch the faith, of a Catholic reader. It may make him weep to see 
Jesus Christ insulted, as he conceives, on the sacrament of his love, 
but it only binds him more intimately to the object of his faith, and 
of his affection. lie knows that what Protestants incredulity calls 
‘making God,’ is the act which Christ commanded. ‘Do this for a 
commemoration of me.’ He knows that what Protestant prejudice 
or indecency calls ‘eating God,’ is the act of religious obedience to 
him who said, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man and 
drink his blood you cannot have life in you, and who said in likeman- 
ner ‘take ye, and eat, this is my body.’ 

Now, Rev. Sir, although I have been obliged to passover testimo- 
nies sufficient to fill a volume, establishing the constant belief of* the 
real presence in the eucharist, still, I mike bold to assert that all the 
ministers in America cannot furnish as much positive evidence from 
all the documents in existence in support of the mere bred and wine 
of the Protestant sacrament, as this letter contains, imperfect as it 
is. They may say that the word ‘signify’ is not found in the Hebrew, 
and that Christ consequently used the words ‘that is’ instead of ‘this 
signifies my body.’ Zuinglius actually made this change in the text. 
But what do they make of Jesus Christ— when they represent him 
opening the door to supposed error, which he foresaw, merely because 
the Hebrew was a jejune language! ! For want of a su. table expres- 
sion, the Son of God laid the foundation of perennial idolatry in his 
church!!! And after all the New Testament was written in the 
Greek tongue, not the Hebrew. Truly Protestants must be easily- 
satisfied in their doctrines. They may say that the Fathers often ap- 
plied the terms, figure, sign, symbol, antitype, bread and wine, to the 
eucharist even after consecration. It is true they applied these terms 
to the exterior appearances— but this only proves that under these 
signs, symbols, &c. they believed the substantial existence of the 
thing signified, viz: the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ Heuce none 


328 CONTROVERSY. 

were allowed to participate of the Eucharist who did not first ‘adore/ 
All the ancient liturgies, heretical as well as Catholic, with the excep- 
tion of some few sects, contain the doctrine of the Eucharist as it is 
believed at this day in the Catholic church. That of the Apostles, 
those of St. Basil and St John Chrysostom, the ancient Gallican li- 
turgy, the Mezarabic, the Nestorian, the Jacobite of Syra, the Copht, 
the Ethiopian are all identically the same with the Roman Missal, on 
that doctrine which you have made to originate in the 13th century 
A. D. 1215. I will allow any gentleman who is a scholar, and desi- 
rous to verify what I assert to compare them, at my house. But where 
can the Protestant doctrine of mere bread and wine find testimony 
to support it ? Would to God, that Protestants would reflect in the 
soberness of genuine piety, on the mutilated Christianity which their 
fathers in the ardour of religious strife have bequeathed them. They 
would not reject the substance for the shadow as they have done. 

Howeveryou have to prove that the Protestant religion is the reli- 
gion of Christ, and perhaps you have furnished yourself by this time, 
with the long expected arguments. You have closed your last let- 
ter by invoking the aid of Bishop Jewel, and quoting a list of repuire- 
ments which is long and arrogant enough. But you should recollect 
that his Panegyrist and 13iographer, Dr. Humphreys admits that the 
good Bishop ‘spoiled himself and his cause’ by the 'boldness of his 
challenges. It might have been well if you had seen this, before you 
issued yours. Besides Jewel, on his death bed, directed his chaplain 
to make known after his decease ‘that what he had written, he had 
done against his own knowledge and conscience, only to comply with 
the state, and that religion which it had set up.’ (Dr. Smith’s Pruden- 
tial Ballance, published in 1609, page 54.) In appealing to the Epis- 
copalians, then, for aid, you might have made a happier selection than 
Bishop Jewel. 

Yours, &c. 

John Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY. No. XXV11I. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF 
CHRIST? 

Philadelphia , Avgust 9th , 18S3. 

To the Rev. John Hughes, 

Sir , — You complain for the second time, in your last letter that j 
have ‘long denied you’ the title of ‘Rev’d Sir.’ I assure you it was 
as far from my intentions to rob you of your honours, by omitting it, 
as it is now to flatter your weakness and vanity, by inserting it. I 
have uniformly addressed you thus, ‘the Rev’d John Hughes:’ and 
surely the repetition, (in immediate succession) of ‘Rev’d Sir,’ is both 
a violation of good taste, and a useless tautology. I see, however, 
that the little nrchin at the press who attached two tt’s to your name, 
in my last proof sheet, understood your wishes better than I do. But 
I would respectfully admonish you, that the title once written, frowns 
upon him ‘who seeks honour of men:’ and that it is not on the num- 
ber, or magnificence of our titles, but on the spirit with which we 
fulfil our ministry, that our supreme care should be bestowed. But 
personal arrogance is not the only characteristic of the introduction 
to your-last letter. The tone of denunciation and bigotry seems to 
rise, as the cause you advocate sinks; and you supply the defect of ar- 
gument, with the increase of pretension. You tell us ‘that no Chris- 
tians agreed with the Protestants in doctrines, from the days of Christ 
until the coming of Luther, and very few since.’ It is no new doc- 
trine with your churcfc to consign all men, out of her communion, to 
eternal woe. It is an article of your creed, that ‘none can be saved,’ 
who do not hold the Roman Catholic faith: and tho Canon Law,’ 
makes it ‘necessary to salvation for every human b§ing to be subject 
to the Roman Pontiff.’ While the people stand amazed at the un- 
paralleled bigotry and intolerance of Romanism, they mnst at least 
approve your candour, in applying these doctrines to the unhappy 
millions of American Paotestants. « 

That this is the universal spirit of the system, whenever it is ho- 
nestly disclosed, or forced out by controversy, may readily be gather- 
ed from the monuments ot the Papacy in every age and country where 
it has had a being, Take for example, the notes on the Rhemish 
translation of the New Testamnnt. The text is the same with the 
New Testament of the Doway Bible, lately republished in this coun- 
try. These notes have been prudently suppressed in that edition. 
The following are specimens. Note on Heb. v. 7. ‘The translators 
of the English (Protestant) Bible ought to be abhorred by the depths 


330 


CONTROVERSY. 


of Hell/ Note on Gal. i. 8. Perverting fand commending a pas- 
sage from Jerome, they say, ‘the zeal of Catholic tnen ought to be so 
great towards all heretics, and their doctrines, that they should give 
them the anathema, though they are never so dear to them; so as not 
even to spare their own parents.’ Luke ix. 55, 56. The Samari- 
tans had rejected Christ; and the indignant disciples asked .Him, if 
like Elias, they should ‘dbimnand fire to come down from Heaven 
and consume them.’ ‘]3ut he turned and rebuked them, and said, ye 
know not what manner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of man is not 
come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ On these passages, 
and in direct contradiction of our Lord, the commentary remarks: 
‘Not justice nor all rigorous punishment of persons is here forbid- 
den, nor Elias’s fact (conduct) reprehended; nor the church, nor 
Christian Princes blamed formatting heretics to death.’ Rev. xvii 6. 
‘The blood of heretics is not the blood of saints; no more than the 
blood of thieves, mankillers and other malefactors ; for the shedding 
of which blood by order of justice no commonwealth shall answer.’ 
Rev. ii. 6,20, 22. ‘Of all things Christian people, especially Bishops, 
should hate heretics, that is, their wicked doctrines and conditions, 
. . . . As Lutherans, Zuinglians, &c.&c. ‘He (Christ) warneth Bish- 
ops to be zealous and stout against the false prophets of what sort 
soever, by alluding cover* ly to the example of holy Elias, that in zeal 
killed four hundred and fifty false prophets’ Johnx I.Wrius, Cal- 
vin, Luther, and all that succeed them in room and doctrine, are 
thieves and murderers ’ Acts xix. 19. ‘A Christian man is bound to 
burn or deface all wicked books, of what sort soever; especially he- 
retical books. Therefore the Church hath taken order against all 
such books.’ 

This is the charity of Rome. These are the doctrines upon oath, 
of every Roman Priest, whatever be the honied words of liberality 
and love which distil from his lips, or run from ids ready pen. And 
we may see what we have to hope for in America, if by the skill of 
the Jesuits, this last refuge of civil and religious liberty shall be vio- 
lated and controuled by the Pone of Rome. 

1 proceed still further to exhibit the grounds of our protest against 
the doctrines, corruptions, &c. of the Church of Rome. And, 

I. The abounding and shocking immoralities, either tolerated by 
the Church of Rome, or directly produced by her institutions. 

In a church where absolute subjection to her supreme head, is the 
very touchstone of orthodoxy, authority cannot be wanting to cor- 
rect and punish vice. By a single act, one Pope abolished the im- 
mense power of the the Jesuits; jjv another act, another Pope has re- 
cently revived that infamous order in all its force. Authority to re- 
form is therefore not wanting. And yet, as I have in part already 
shown, in several unanswered letters the church of Rome had become 
so corrupt in its morals that the whole world was crying out for seve- 
ral ages, for a reformation. This too, was not a temporary, local, or 
partial corruption. It had existed for ages before the Reformation: it 
it was universal, extending to all parts of the world, and to. all orders 
in the church, beginning at the Popes and Cardinals, Bishops and 
Priests: it was deep and dreadful, striking at the foundation of mo- 


CONTROVERSY- 


331 

rals; so that religion lay expiring on the altar, by the hands of her 
priets. The history of the immoralities of your Popes, Prelatesand 
Priests alone would fill a volume. We give (in addition to those re- 
corded in previous letters) only a few examples. Krasins (Ann. in. 
Epis ad. 'inn. c. 3) writes: ‘11 any one consider the state of tlese 
times, how great a part of mankind the multitude of monks take up; 
how great a part the colleges of Priests and clergymen; and then con- 
sider how few out of so great a number truly preserve chastity of life, 
with how great scandal most of them are openly incestuous, and in- 
continent, into what kind of lusts, innumerable of them degenerate, 
he will perhaps conclude it were convenient that those who are not 
continent, may have the freedom of public marriage,. which they may 

S urely and chastely, and without infamy, maintain.’ Gerson (De vita 
pirit. Animse Kec. 4) affirms ‘that unchaste Priests must be tolerat- 
ed or no Priests can be had.’ Ciemangis (l)e Corrupt. Keel. stat. p, 
15.) writes that the Priests openly kept concubines at a stated price 
paid to the Bishop. In Germany this system was carried so far, that 
the licenses to do so, were forced even upon those who did wish them, 
that the tax might not belostjand in Switzerland (Sleidan Com. 1 3.) 
every new Pastor was required to take a concubine that he might not 
endanger the families of his charge. The Bishop of Saltzburg (Onus 
Eccl. chap. 22) tells us that ‘the nunneries in his time were as public- 
ly prostituted as the common brothels.’ Sunt propatula ut ipsa loca 
veneris. Thuanus (a Roman Catholic Historian, B.37.p. 768, A. D. 
1566) says, that when Pope Paul 5th, thought of putting down the 
public brothels in Rome and expelling the courtezans the city, the se- 
nate of home, instigated privately by the clergy interceded with him 
not to do it: and they added this reason, that if such a crowd of un- 
married Priests were left in the city without these evil women, it 
would be impossible to preserve i he chastity of their families.’ 'Phis 
shocking state of things among the Pripstsof the Holy city was near- 
ly half a century after the Reformation of Luther had begun. Nor 
let it he supposed that this was done without approval. It was de- 
fended and sustained by example, license, and even bypublf ly avow- 
ed principle. It was tolerated when reform was called for from eve- 
ry throne, and from all parts of the world. It is notorious that the 
Pope of Rome licensed brothels and built stews in the city of Rome, 
and at one time he drew from them an annual revenue of 20,000 duc- 
ates; the crowd of such women in the keeping of the priests was im- 
mense; and the revenue collected week after week, was taken from 
the chest in which the price of iniquity was cast and divided equal- 
ly between the houses, the women, and the Popes! If you would 
have more full references, they are at hand. Bellarmine, sustained 
by Coster, Pighius, Cardinal Hosius, and Cardinol Campegins, does 
not hesitate to declare ‘that it is a greater evil, (i. e. under a vow of 
celibacy) so to marry than to commit fornication. Est majus malum 
sic nubre, quarn fornication. (Bel. b 2. De Monachis c. 24.) and the 
reason which he assigns for this is its own best comment, viz: ‘because 
she who thus marries remlers herself incapable of keeping her vow; 
but she who commits fornication is not incapable.’ Quia quae ita nu- 
bit, reddit se inhahilem ad votum servandum; qued non iacit, quae 


CONTROVERSY 


I5EB3I 



fornicatur. 1 need not here remind you of the incest of Paul the 
3d, the sodomies of Julius the 3d, and the vile commerce of Innocent 
the 10th with his brother’s wife, Olympia. Abbott Gualdi pronoun- 
ces his amours almost without a parallel for scandal and illicit love. 
JohnCasa, Archbishop of Beneventum and legate of the Pope, pub- 
lished an apology for sodomy; and Gualter Mapes complains that the 
Priests used to suspend the salvation of females at confession, upon 
the condition of yielding to their imfamous wishes ! Horror arid 
shame alternately possess me while I record these enormities But if 
the perusal makes us shudder and blush, what must the perpetration 
of them have been? 

We said that these immoralities were in part, produced by the pe- 
culiar institutions of the church. We allude to the monasteries, nun- 
neries, vows of celibacy, and especially the celibacy of the clergy. — 
Strange as it may seem, these institutions and vows, were professedly 
established and enforced to advance piety, and secure purity of life. 
But in this as in most cases where men attempt to be wiser than God, 
the result has been of the most disastrous character. We would not 
be understood indiscriminately to condemn a life of voluntary celi- 
bacy. ‘Both virginity and marriage were states of innocence, and of 
paradise. Christ has consecrated both, having been born of a virgin, 
and yet a woman who was then bethrothed and afterwards married.’ 
The Council of Trent not only encouraged monastic vows, but en- 
forced celibacy on the clergy. This is both a novelty and an innova- 
tion in the Church of God. The word of God declares Heb. xiii. 4. 
‘that marriage is honourable in all.’ The church of Rome on the con- 
trary forbids it to her clergy. The word of God declares that ‘a bi- 
shop must be the husband of one wife.’ Tit. i. 6. The Church of 
Rome forbids it; and dares to put asunder what God hath joined to- 
gether, separating the priest or bishop from his lawful wife, and ana- 
thematizes those who dissent from her decree. Chrysostom on the 
last named Scripture, makes this decisive comment: ‘the apostle pre- 
scribed this passage to this end, that he might stop the mouths of he- 
retics who reproached marriage; declaring thereby that marriage is no 
unclean thing, but so honourable that a married man may be exalted 
to the sacred throne of a bishop.’ (Horn. 2. c. 1. ad. Tit.) It is very 
remarkable that the Apostle Paul in immediate connexion with his 
definition of a Bishop’s qualifications (among which he mentions that 
he must be the husband of one wife, 1 Tim. iii.2.) predicts the coming 
of seducing spirits, who should depart from the faith, ‘forbid to mar- 
ry, and command to abstain from meats.’ I leave the application for 
vourself, reminding you that the early heretics, viz: the Manichees, 
Kicholaitans, &c. unite with the church of Rome and the followers of 
Joanna Southcote and Jemima Wilkinson in more modern times, in 
‘forbidding to marry.’ Radolpho Pio-di Carpo.an Italian Cardinal in 
the Council of Trent, when various princes pressed the propriety of 
the priests marrying, told the Council in a speech, ‘this inconvenience 
would follow from it, that having house, wife, arid children, they wlil 
not depend on the Pope, but on the prince; and their love to their 
children will make them yield to any prejudice of the church and 
they will seek to make the benefices hereditary, and so in a short time 


CONTROVERSY; 


333 


the authority of the Apostolic See will be confined within Rome.’ — 

( 1 list. Com. Trent. B.5.) It was the abounding corruptions of the 
church of Rome, and especially of Rome itself, that made the candid 
Roman Catholic author of the ‘Onus Ecclesiae’ call Rome ‘the seat of 
the Beast, the church of the wicked, the kingdopiof darkness, sus- 
tained by simony and ambition, filled with covetousness, a gulph of 
crimes.’ (Chap. 21.) 

You have been pleased, entirely to overlook the long extracts which 
I made, in Letter No. 18, addressed to Pope Paul the 3d, by four car- 
dinals and other distinguished prelates at his own request, contain- 
ing a picture of the church, drawn by the hands of its friends, which 
for deformity and crime finds not a parallel in the history of the 
world. 1 also gave you large extracts, in letter No. 20, from the ad- 
dress of the Bishops at Bononia, to Paul the 3d, and referred you, for 
this shocking but faithful sketch, to Vergerius and Wolfius. 1 point- 
ed you also to the ‘one hundred grievances’ of the German States, 
detailing the corruptions of the Church, and calling for reform. But 
nothing can break the profound and wise silence which you have 
decreed upon this subject. Without further enlarging upon it now, 
I would direct our readers to the ‘Provincial Letters’ of Pascal, in 
which, though himself a Roman Catholic, he exposes with the pen of 
master, the casuistry of the Jesuits in destroying the foundation of 
morals. There, within a short compass, it is clearly shown, how the 
order of the Jesuits, who are now in high favour at Rome, make truth 
and sacred oaths, and loyalty, and justice, and chastity, and princi- 
ples, in all its forms, give way to their refined interpretations and 
infamous doctrines. And yet I find that on the last Sabbath day the 
President of Georgetown College, District of Columbia, delivered in 
St. Joseph’s Church in this city, a panegyric (according to public no- 
tice) on St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesuits. — 
How well has St. Chrysostom said, (In 1 Tim. 1 horn. 5.) ‘When men 
lead corrupt lives, it is impossible they should keep themselves from 
falling into perverse doctrines.’ 

II We would next exhibit the forged miracles, the legalized im- 
positions of the Church of Rome. 

We have already, in a previous letter, mad* reference to the autho- 
rity of the Breviary, as the book of common prayer in the Church of 
Rome. The Latin edition of this work, now before me, revised by 
three Popes, and of unquestioned authority, is a very fountain of the 
grossest frauds and superstition. I find for example, under the fes- 
tival appointed for the 15th day of October, (pages 1911, lfil2) in ho- 
nour of the Virgin Saint Teresa, the following narrative. ‘She burned 
with so strong a desire for chastising her body, that although disease 
seemed to deter from it, she inflicted on herself the severest 
pains and penalties by the use of hair-cloth, chains, pricking nettles, 
and likewise by most severe flagellations; and sometimes while roll- 
ing herself on thorns, she would thus hold communion with God; ‘0 
Lord I must afflict myself or die.’ Being premonished of her death, 
she breathed out her piye soul to God in the form of a dove, aged 
sixty-seven, in the year 1502. Jesus Christ appeared to her, as she 
was dying, surrounded by bands of Angela; and immediately a life- 


StA 


CONTROVERSY. 


less and barren tree which stood near to her cell, bloomed forth. Her 
body continues incorrupt^until this clay, (the 18th century) circum- 
fused in sacred fluid, and is worshiped with religious veneration, She 
was made illustrious by miracles wrought bv her, both before and after 
death. Gregory the 15th has canonized her.’ Here we see flagella- 
tion and other self inflicted punishments recommended, and the most 
notorious frauds gravely put upon the people, in their standard prayer 
book, for real miracles. 

It is related of Dionysius in the same book, ‘that after he had been 
beheaded l e took his head in his arms, and carried it no less than 
two thousand paces.’ (See Breviary 1007 p.) In the festival of Au- 
gust the hst,in liohonr of the chains of >d. refer, (p.887) is the follow- 
ing narrative: ‘Kudoxia, the wife of the Emperor Theodosius the 
younger, being on a pilgrimage at Jerusalem, received among other 
presents, the chain with which the Apostle Peter was bonnd by lie- 
rod. Kudoxia with pious veneration, sent this chain to her daughter 
who was then at Rome, who carried it to the pope, the pope in return 
showed her another chain with which the same apostle had been 
bound by Nero. As soon the two chains were brought together it 
came to pass that they instantly flew to each other, and the links 
formed one chain as if welded by art.’ In honour of so great a 
miracle, the church instituted the festival ‘ad vincula .’ In the pro- 
clamation of the jubilee for 1825, the pope expressly mentions this 
chain, as an inducement to the faithful to visit Rome that they might 
kiss it, and secure the indulgences peculiar to such miracles and re- 
lics, &c. In pages 971 — 2 are recorded the feats and miracles of St. 
Januarius living and dead. We are seriously told, on the authority 
of the infallible church, that ‘by means of his dead body which was 
preserved at Naples, an fruplion of Mount Vesuviusthat was spread- 
ing desolation far and wide, was miraculously extinguished. What 
is still more illustrious, his blood, some of which is preserved in a 
glass phial at Naples, in a coagulated state, when brought within resell 
of the Martyr’s head, is immediately liquified, and boils up as if re- 
cently shed; and this miracle may" be seen even at the present time.’ 
That there may be no question about this record, I give the original: 
‘Praeclarum illud quoque, quod ejus sanguis, qui in ampulla vitrea 
concretus asservatur, cum in conspectu capitis ejusdem Martyris po- 
nitur, admirandum in niodum collique — fieri, et ebuliire, perinde 
atqne recens efiusus. Ad haec usque tempo.ia cernitur.’ Great as 
is th s miracle„fhe chemist’s test has been studiously resisted. It 
would be easy to settle this question by such a trial, and real miracles 
invite inquiry. Rut the Pope is too wise to hazard an experiment, 
and yet is a miracle professedly of fifteen hundred years standing, 
and is at this day sanctioned by the Roman Breviary, and celebrated 
in the public worship of the whole church. When the French troops 
first occupied Naples, this miracle, which is aunual, failed to occur; 
with the design of agitating the people, and producing an injurious 
impression towards the French. Rut the French General sent a posi- 
tive order to the saint to do his duty, under the pain of making an 
example of the priest if he failed. He promptly obeyed: the miracle 
was immediately wrought. 


CONTROVERT. 


333 


Once more: i'lie translation of the house of Loretto from Palestine 
to Italy, is recorded in the collect of that festival, even in a diiect 
address to the Deity. It is pretended, that this house, in which Vir- 
gin Mary was born at Nazarafh, was translated by angles ill the 13th 
century across the Sea into Damatia, and afterwards into Italy, 
where it now stands under the name of ‘our Lady ofLorette’s Chapel.’ 
When the question arises about the truth of the miracle and the iden- 
tity of the house, the Bulls of Popes are adduced to confirm the 
faith of doubting. With such frauds are the bigoted and deluded 
millions deceived, and by such attestations does thelnfallible Church 
confirm the truth of her doctrines, and the holiness of her character. 
The following phrophecy, (2 Tiiess. ii.S — 10.) though penned in the 
first century, is as true to the life, as if it had been written by an eye- 
witness. ‘Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall 
uot come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin 
be revealed the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself 
above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, 
sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Re- 
member ye not, that when I was yet with you, l told you these thing-? 
And now ye know what vvitholdeth that they might be revealed in his 
time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who 
now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall 
that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit 
of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: — 
Even him, whose coming after the working of Satan, with all power 
and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighte- 
ousness in them" that perish; because they received not the love of the 
truth that they might be saved.’ 

Besides the false miracles thus attested by the Church of Rome, 
the rights, ceremonies, and observances of the Church are characte- 
rised by the grossest superstitions, and exhibit a ritual workship de* 
rived directly from the Pagans. 'Hie celebration of the Mass, the 
burnin°- of tapers, the whole system of processions, the use of holy 
water, their exorcisms, beads, rosaries, &c., their talismans, amulets, 
and Agnus Dei, their lustrations, blessing of beasts, &c. &c., consti- 
tute one deforming assemblage of heathenism superstition. Look for 
example at the style of Baptism as contrasted with the simple insti- 
tution of Jesus Christ. <f l he Priest in first place calls for a lighted 
candle; and then procures some holy water, he next calls for salt, 
which has been exercised, some water, tow, the oil box, &c.; he then 
prepares a solution of salt and water for the aspersion of the chid’ 
much in the way in which holy water is made, and pronouncing at, 
the same time some cabalistic words in Latin. Next he commences 
expelling the Devil from the child, he then puts salt into its mouth, 
besmears the eves, nose, and ears of the child with spittle, and after 
pouring water on the child’s head, rubs sweet oil on its crown and 

shoulders.’ . „ 

We spoke of talismans, amulets, &c. as sanctioned by the Church 
of Rome. Take as a specimen the Agnus Dei, or a little image of a 
Lamb, made of a compound of virgin-w ax, balm, and consecrated oil, 
which they hang about the neck, like the Heathen, to preserve them 
41 


336 


CONTROVERSY. 


from disease, evil spirit, &c. The pretended properties and virtues 
of thpse talismans are described by Pope Urban V. (who sent one of 
them to Constantinople to be presented to the Emperor,) in the follow- 
ing inimitable lines: 

“Balsamus et munda cera cum Chrismatis unda, 

Conficiunt Agnaum quodmunus do tibi magnum. 

Fulgura desursum depellit, omne malignum- 

Peccatumfrangit, ut Christi sanguis, et angit. 

Pregnans servatur, simuj et partus liberatur. 

Dona defer! digni9, virtutem,simul et partus liberature. 

Portatus munde, de fluctibus eripit undac.” 

From these most painful and humiliating details, I gladly turn 
away, asking, if any church enjoining such heathenish rites and super- 
stitious ceremonies as these, and sustaining them by such barefaced 
impostures called- miracles, can be the true, the only true, the holy 
and infallible Church of Jesus Christ, out of which there is no sal- 
vation? These are some of the errors and evils, against which we 
protest, and for whose reform our fathers plead in vain! 

III. As you profess to have in the Church of Rome the unbroken 
and exclusive succession from the Apostle Peter to the present time, 
1 will next examine this claim. 

I have already proved, (see Letter No. 22.) that the supremacy of 
the Pope is an anti Christian usurpation of which the Scriptures are 
wholly silent; and whose origin is found, ages after the death of 
Christ. But even on your own principles, Bellarmine al- 
lows (R. 2. c. I. of the Pope) ‘The right of successfon in the Popes 
of Rome, is founded in this, that Peter, by Christ’s appointment, 
placed his seat at Rome, and there remained until his death.’ 

1. But there is no certainty whatever, that Peter was ever at Rome. 
The Scripture is wholly silent about it. Paul was there once and 
again; and in his epistles written from Rome, he records a long list 
of names, and among them even a refugee slave; but not a word of 
Pone Peter. The ithemish Commentators are so anxious to prove 
this from Scripture, that they say Babylon, from which Peter wrote 
his first epistle, was Rome. But if this be so, then confessedly, 
Rome is the Anti-Christ mentioned in Revelations, 16th and 17th 
chapters. 

2. Allowing that Peter was at Rome, there is not a shadow of 
proof that lie had his seat there, or that Christ appointed him to be 
Bishop of Rome. The Bible, is wholly silent on this subject also. 
Yet surely in fixing the imperial seat, and appointing the monarch 
and head of the universal church, we might expect it to be full and 
definite, saying, ‘this is the place,’ ‘this is the man,’ ‘hear ye him.’ 
So far from this, Peter had quite another sphere. His field of la- 
bour was far, (hr away from Rome; and his office as an Apostle, 
made it. impossible for him to be a Bishop, or to be local, or to have a 
successor at all. 

3. I he Apostle John survived Peter some SO years. Hence the 
succession, if any, mast come from John, or else the Pope who suc- 
ceeded Peter was the head of the church, and above an Apostle. But 
you do not pretend to trace succession from John; and your own doc- 


CONTROVERSY. 


33? 

trines lead jou to deny that the successor of Peter was superior- to 
John. Therefore jour succession is irreparably ruined at the thresh- 
hold. If not you will please to explain this dilemma? 

4. It is not agreed among yourselves whether Linus, or Clemen?'. 
orCletus, or Anacletus, succeeded as second Pope. The Fathers 
are divided about it; so are your standard authors. Bellarmine owns 
this to be the fact. Here then, the succession fails again, at the third 
link. 

5* What were the character and doctrine, of these pretended suc- 
cessors of Peter. There were fifty Popes in a line, says Genebrard, 
who were apostates. Baronius tells us that strumpets elected seve- 
ral Popes, whom they also ruled, having driven away the true Popes, 
and that their names were written in the catalogues of the Popes on- 
ly to note the times. These testimonies have been brought forward 
before; but you lack ‘intention,’ and therefore they are of no avail. 
Bellarmine says, (Book 4. c. 14. on Popes,) “that at the*Council of 
Constance there were three who claimed to be Popes, John XXI 11. 
Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII’ each having very learned advocates; 
and it could not be readily decided which w as the true Pope.’ Again, 
(in his B. 2. c. 19. of Councils) he says, ‘a doubtful Pope is reckon- 
ed no Pope.’ Since then there were false Popes, and apostate Popes, 
and several Popes at once, who being doubtful, were no Popes, is not 
the succession of your church forever gone? A fid then as to the doc- 
trines of these Popes, what were they? Ambrose saith, ‘they have 
not the succession of Peter, who have not his faith,’ (Ambrose de 
Poenit. B. 1. c. 6.) Gratian has practiced a fraud upon this passage, 
making it read ‘seat’ of Peter, instead of ‘faith of Peter.’ This is 
owning, that in ‘faith’ the succession was gone. I have heretofore 
mentioned several heretical Popes, Their contradictions of each 
other, and their departure from the f aith of the church, are matters 
of such notoriety that you will not deny them. If you do, I can name 
them at will. I will here only advert to Libeiius, the Arian Pope. 
And I ask you did he or did he not sign the Arian Creed? Yes, or 
no? He did, as your own historians confess, publicly adopt the Arian 
Heresy. Then while he was an Arian what became of the apostoli- 
cal succession, when the head of the universal Church as, you declare 
him to have been, became radically and avowedly 'a heretic? — either 
his heresy made his office vacant, or else he continued the heath of the 
church. If the former, then the succession was broken for want of a 
Pope. If the latter, then your succession is kept up through the Ari- 
an line, and by the destruction of the true faith. 

We have now reached the second era in this discussion, viz: your 
attempt at a defence of some of your peculiar doctrines. From a 
crowd of pressing difficulties on Supremacy, Indulgences, Purgatory, 
Idolatory, Extreme Unction, &c. ike. you select for detenge the doc- 
trine of Transubstantiation. In your argument we meet the newly 
christened ‘defender of the faith,’ Thomas Moore, at almost eyery 
step. In his ‘Travels in search of a Religion,’ he found it convenient 
to pass by the word of God, agreeing no doubt with you, (in your dis- 
cussion on the rule of faith’) that when he left to speak for itself, it 
does not teach the religion of Rome. If, in his travels he had visited 


3*3 


CONTROVERSY. 


Rome, or touched at the Inquisition, or met the Council of Sirmiuin, 
or mingled with the Council of Constance, he might have given a ve- 
ry different report. Is it not a little surprising that in a defence 
of Transubstantiation covering five columns, you should not only be- 
gin with the fathers (instead of the Bible) but should also entirely 
evade the testimony of your writers and the body of my arguments 
given in Letter 24. You will permit me to invert the order of dis- 
cussion, by beginning with the Scriptures. And first, in regard to 
John, 6th chapter, where it is thus written. ‘Except ve eat the flesh 
of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you.’ v. 33. 
On this passage you attempt to found the doctrine of Transubstanti- 
ation. The Jews, understood Christ literally and grossly, just as 
Roman Catholics do now; but he openly rebuked them for their carnal 
stupidity, in mistaken his meaning. ‘This is that bread which came 

down from heaven; not as your fathers did eat manna It is the 

spirit that quickened), the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I 
speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life. But there are some 
of you that believe not,’ vs 53, 63, 6i, And again, (in Evang. John, 
Tracts 25, 26, 50.) ‘how shall I send up my hand into heaven and take 
hold on Christ sitting there ! Send thy faith and thou hast hold of 
him. Why prepa rest thou thy teeth and thy belly? Believe, and 
thou hast eaten. For this is to eat the living bread; to believe in him. 
He that bclieveth in him eatheth. He is invisibly fed, because he is 
invisibly regenerated. He is inwardly a babe, inwardly renewed: 
where he is renewed, there lie is nourished.’ 

When I quoted for your perusal, the challenge of Bishop Jewel, it 
was rather to invite your attention to his reasoning, than his charac- 
ter; and you must be aware that you do not answer the one, by at- 
tacking the other. It is true, even as you have said, that he once con- 
fessed ‘he had written what he had done ag.linst his knowledge and 
conscience, only to comply with the state, and the religion which he 
had set up.’ When Mary of bloody memory, ascended the throne 
of England, and re-established by her memorable persecutions and 
cruelties, the religion of Rome, Jewel, was hunted down and compell- 
ed either to renounce his religion or go the stake. ‘His cowardly 
mind’ as he himself confessed, yielded in the hour of danger and temp- 
tation, to a forced conformity. It is to this he refers in the language 
which you adduce. And yet with unaccountable license, you make 
it appear, at the close of your letter, that he renounced the Protestant 
religion. Over such deliberate misrepresentations, I would for your 
o!lice sake, if truth and justice did not forbid, throw a veil which 
should hide it from the eyes of men. You have used the same liber- 
ty (as I have heretofore shown) with the writings of Luther; and 
yoursilence on tills subject in the last letter seems to confess that it 
could not be defended. The frequency of such occurrences in your 
letter? , ufflicts and amazes me 

But to return to Bishop Jewel, allow me once more to propose for 
your consideration and answer, the direct questions which his famous 
challenge, contains. Are they incapable of answ er? Are they not 
simple, pertinent and decisive? 1 pray you, that you will not again 
pass them by. I remain, yours, &c. 


John Breckinridge. 


CONTROVERSY. 


139 


1*. S. As the time originally specified “in the rules** for the contiuance of 
this controversy has now elapsed, it is due to the public and the parties, that 
thef 0 H 0 win.Gfc 0 rresp 6 ndencesh 0 uld.be made known. I accordingly publish 
it below. It sufficiently explains itself without the need of comment. 


Princeton , A*. J. 26th July, 1 833. 

Rvv. John Pirfckinuidgk, 

Fl>v. Sir, — Allow me in ibis way to remind you that the period for which the 
Controversy was to cont one has now just elapsed. The letter now in press 
en is the s'x m >vhs, beyond, which, according to mutual agreement, the cor- 
resoon lenoe was not to go 

If, however, it shoo! 1 be deemed proper by the disputants to pr< secute the 
discussion still further in the columns of the Fresbyterian.it will he necessary 
tbit there sho dd he previously a personal arrangement and definitive limitation 
of time, between yourself and Mr Hughes 

A reply, ad Iressed to the care of the publishers, will be esteemed a favour. 

An exact duplicate of this letter is carried by the same mail to the Rev. Mr. 
Hughes, in piisuance of that impartiality which it has been my endeavour to 
maintain. 

Respectfully yours, 

JAMES W. 'ALEXANDER. 

Ed of the Presbyterian. 

To Tit v. Rht. Jo hit H minus, 

Sir, On my return from Baltimore this morning, I received a letter from the 
Editor of the Presbyterian, reminding me that “the period for which the Con- 
troversy was to continue has now elapsed.” and saving, that “if the disputants 
should deem it proper to prosecute the discussion still further in the columns of 
the Pr< sbyterian,,it will be necessary that there should be previously, a per- 
sonal arrangement, and definitive limitations of time, between yourself and Mr. 
Hughes.’* 

In view of the above suggestions, it becomes my duty to say to you, that it 
res f s entirely with yourself to close or continue the discussion. 

Tt '’ill not he necessary for me to commence my autumnal tour, earlier than 
the 1st of October, in the mean time therefore, l am entirely at your service. 
And if after that time, you feel disposed to prosecute the Controversy still fur- 
ther, ! shall he happy to meet you in a public oral discussion; or if you think 
prudent to decline that, 1 shad at all times hold myself in readiness to attend 
to vnur communications (through the press) of a more permanent and con- 
nected character. 

I remain your ob’t. servt. 

JOHN BRECKINRIDGE. 

To the Rr.v. .Tonv Bri'cktvuipgt:. 

Rev. Sir, - I have already complied with the requisition of Mr Alexander, 
by a note to the publishers — in which 1 have stated my intention to continue the 
controversy as long as may he desired You wilt have it in your power to fix 
the “limitation” when and where you may deem it convenient. 

Your obedient servant, 

- JOHN HUGHES. 

August 1st, 18 >3. 


4 
















H' 








■y-<& n’i-iO 


c . 


M 


*} 


- 


•. - *'£*■ 


*\ t ' /, 

• f 


1 • •> '* 

v r . ,+Y 




V 




* 



CONTROVERSY. No. XXIX. 


RULES. 

The undersigned agreeing to have an amicable discussion of the great points 
of religious controversy, between Protestants and Roman Catholics, do hereby 
bind themselves to the observance of the following rules : 

1. The parties shall write and publish, alternately, in the weekly religious 
papers, called the Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic paper, to be furnished by 
the first of January. It being understood that the communications shall be pub- 
lished after the following plan : — One party opening the first week, the other 
party replying the next week, and every piece to be republished in the immedi- 
ately succeeding number of the Roman Catholic paper. The communications 
not to exceed four columns of the Presbyterian, nor to continue beyond six 
months, without consent of parties. 

2. The parties agree that there is an infallible Rule of Faith established by 
Christ, to guide us in matters of religion, for the purpose of determining dis- 
putes in the Church of Christ. 

3. They moreover agree, that after giving their views of the Rule of Faith, 
they shall proceed to discuss the question, “Is the Protestant religion, the re- 
ligion of Christ ?” 

4. The parties agree respectively, to adhere strictly to the subject of discus- 
sion, for the time being, and to admit no second question, until the first shall 
have been exhausted. Each party shall be the judge when he is done with a 
subject, and shall be at liberty to occupy his time with a second topic, when he 
is done with the first, leaving to the other party the liberty of continuing to re- 
view the abandoned topic, as long as he shall choose ; subject, however, to be 
answered, if he introduce new matter. 

5. Mr. Hughes to open the discussion, and Mr. Breckinridge to follow, accord- 
ing to the dictates of his own judgment. 

JOHN BRECKINRIDGE, 

Philadelphia, December 14th, 1832. JNO. HUGHES. 

IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF CHRIST ! 

To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 

Rev. Sir, — Mr. Breckinridge says that “ the Protestant is the reli- 
gion of Christ .” i 

If so , I call upon him IsL To tell me what the Protestant religion isp 

2. I call upon him to say what society of Christians ever taught 
this pretended “ religion of Christ ,” previous to the Refor- 
mation p 

3 I call upon him to say , whether Christ revealed all the doc- 
trines of the Protestant religion , beginning with the best 
image of his church , Episcopalianism, and terminating with 
the most consistent of Protestant sects , the Unitarians P — 
and if not , how many denominations , out of the whole , belong 
to the true Protestant religion , the religion of Christ P 

4 I call upon him to show whether the Reformers received any 
new ministerial authority , after the withdrawal of that which 
they had received from the church P 

5. I call upon him , in case no such new authority was received , 
to show that the Protestant clergy , so called , have any divine 
right to exercise the Christian ministry , more than other 
educated laymen P 

Now I call upon you to answer these questions. Take them up, 

one after the other, and give to each of them, that simple, candid, 

and ingenuous answer that each of them demands. You are bound 

to do this. Otherwise, it will be said of you, in the figurative lan- 

341 


342 


CONTROVERSY. 


guage of Scripture, “ this man began to build, and was not able to 
finish.” My own opinion is, that you are afraid — that you see the 
difficulties of the case, and endeavour to shun them. But there are 
venerable brethren and fathers in the Presbyterian church, learned 
professors, men in ripe age and knowledge, inquire of them “ what 
is the Protestant religion?” Let them answer successively the other 
questions. 

If, however, neither you, nor they can answer them, then it fol- 
lows that, whether you acknowledge it or not, you are driven out of 
the field on the present question. 1st. Because you cannot defend, 
what you cannot define. 2. Because you cannot discover so much as 
one village that professed, previous to the soi-disant Reformation, the 
doctrines of any sect of Protestants. 3d. Because you cannot de- 
fend Protestantism in the gross , and yet you dare not divide it. 
4th. Because the Reformers had no ministerial authority. 5th. Be- 
cause, consequently, they could not transmit any ministerial authority 
to their successors. 

The peevish little disquisition, on epistolary etiquette, with which 
you commence your last letter, is very curious. It would seem that 
you are determined to chastise the “ bad taste” and “ useless tautolo- 
gy” of your friends in Princeton, who address you just as I do, 
“ Rev. Sir.” Why is the Rev. Mr. Alexander, whose letter you 
publish, guilty of this supposed “ bad taste ?” 

And even some of your own letters, (some at least that have your 
signature,) are guilty of that “ repetition,” which, as the magister 
elegantiarum, you pronounce to be a “ violation of good taste and a 
useless tautology !” How was this ? But the whole amounts to 
this, that when you condescended to address me by the title of “ Rev. 
Sir,” you were courteous by mistake , and the opening of your last 
epistle is your apology for having been polite. For the rest, you 
should be assured by this time , that nothing from your pen can 
awaken vanity, or provoke resentment in the bosom of your opponent. 

This same paragraph winds up with an attack on the pretended 
uncharitableness of the Catholic religion, touching the doctrine of 
exclusive salvation. You seem to feel that the prejudice of Protes- 
tants, on this and other subjects is now your only dependence, and 
accordingly you try to stir it up in your favour. Catholics, as you 
know, or ought to know, believe that out of the true church there is 
no salvation. But they hold, as explicitly belonging to the true 
church, all those who are members of the great, primitive, and Catho- 
lic society of Christians in communion with the Apostolical see of 
Rome ; besides, they hold, as belonging implicitly to the true church, 
all those who do what God requires of them according to the mea- 
sure of grace, knowledge, and opportunity which they may have re- 
ceived. Hence even among Protestants there may be members of 
the true church , not indeed because they are Protestants, but because 
by the inscrutable permission of God, they have been brought up in 
invincible ignorance of the truth, which they would embrace, if they 
knew it. But it is. manifest that this plea of invincible ignorance, is 
the only one that can excuse a rational being for rejecting the revela- 
tion of Christ. Can Protestants say that their ignorance is invinci- 


343 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

ble ? Can their ministers, more especially say so ? I judge them 
not, God will judge. And at his tribunal the plea of chance, party 
attachment, or prejudice, which binds them to one sect or another, 
will not be admitted. 

Now let us state the “ exclusive salvation” of Presbyterianism, 
and see whether it is not more “ bigoted,” contracted and “intole- 
rant,” than ours, which I have just described. I will not misrepre- 
sent as you have done. But I shall quote from your own last “ Con- 
fession of Faith,” as amended in 1821, (page 111.) “The visible 

church consists of all those throughout the world, that profess 

the true religion, together with their children ; and is the kingdom 
of Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is 
no ordinary possibility of salvation .” This doctrine secures heaven 
to Presbyterians “ ana their children,” and denies the “ possibility 
of . salvation to all the rest of mankind, Protestants as well as Catho- 
lics. And yet you talk about “ bigotry 1” This doctrine dooms the 
whole Christian world to perdition, except Calvin and the chosen 
race of which he became the father, some 1500 years after Christ ! ! 
And all Protestants, who have not Calvin for their religious progeni- 
tor, are doomed to the same destruction. I would advise that the 
cpnfession.be again “ amended.” 

But then I shall be told that the Catholic church will not extend 
the right hand of fellowship to any other. Certainly not — and . this 
is one of the marks of her divinity. She could not be the church 
of Christ, if she ceased to proscribe the systems invented in the 16th 
century, by a few of her own apostate children. She would be un- 
worthy of her celestial origin, if she could stoop to Luther’s religion 
or to Calvin’s, and say “ Hail, Sister ! Thou also art heaven-born 
like myself !” Truth is unchangeable— -I will say more, it is essen- 
tially intolerant ; in history, in mathematics, in medicine, in juris- 
prudence — so that when the culprit forfeits his life to the insulted 
laws of his country, he perishes by the intolerance of truth. But 
error, on the contrary, may be tolerant towards its kindred error, and 
the liberality of Protestantism, as far as it exists, is the evidence that 
the whole system is bottomed on conscious uncertainty. Thus Pro- 
testantism subsists by excitement, or else degenerates into that frigid 
indifference to all religious truth, which is the incipient stage of in- 
fidelity. It has charity for deists and atheists, but not for Catholics, 
just as Pagan Rome was tolerant to every thing but Christianity. 
This gentle spirit of Protestantism cannot contend against the Catho- 
lic church, without being reminded of its own recent and spurious 
origin. Hence those who write against the primitive faith, and in 
defence of that nondescript called “ Protestantism,” are almost in- 
variably observed to lose their sense of good manners, propriety, de- 
cency, and even self-respect , which should never be forgotten. They 
believe in mysteries as well as Catholics ; and yet they ridicule Catho- 
lic mysteries just in the same language which Deists use against 
their own. They read our books and pervert them, just as Deists 
read and pervert the Scriptures. Their arguments are deistical , and 
yet they pretend to be Christians by excellence ! They insult Jesus 
Christ in the mystery of the Eucharist , and thereby teach the Deists 


344 


CONTROVERSY. 


to insult him in the mystery of the Incarnation. — The former doc- 
trine being even more fully attested by Scripture than the latter. 
They find, on mature reflection, that in their immortal hatred of the 
Catholic church they do the work of the deists. They stoop to 
every thing, however low and vulgar, that may sustain the credit of 
their Abating systems, as they are tossed to and fro by every wind of 
doctrine. — And seem to regret, as a misfortune, that the moorings of 
the Catholic church are fixed, unchangeable and eternal. 

If any one, Rev. Sir, is tempted to suppose that this picture is 
overcharged, I refer him, for the correction of his mistake, to the 
contents of your last letter. The perusal of it must have been pain- 
ful to your best friends. They must have been mortified, to perceive 
the advantages which it yielded to your opponent, when, instead of 
dignified controversy, such as the question called for, they saw you 
descend to the filthiest topics, couched and amplified in the filthiest 
terms known to the English language. It might have been expected 
from the pen which composed the Report of the Magdalen Society 
in New York, some time ago ; but from the Rev. John Breckinridge 
with his name, it was not expected. Delicacy must have blushed, 
and cast the paper away. And even among your own people, I ven- 
ture to assert that no lady will acknowledge to have it read. I had 
laboured from the commencement to hold you up, and compel you to 
be dignified; and, at this advanced stage of the discussion, judge 
how it grieves me to perceive that I have toiled in vain ! But I have 
the satisfaction to assure you, that if you are determined to sink, you 
6hall not drag me with you : you shall go down alone, when I can 
support you no longer. In retailing, therefore, the scandals where- 
withal Protestant calumny has endeavoured to blacken the character 
of the Popes and the church, you may safely calculate on impunity . 
The region to which you have descended, is to me unapproachable. 
The very indelicacy of your position shall protect you. And though 
I shall leave you “alone with your glory,” still I cannot help ex- 
claiming over you, more in pity than in triumph, “ 0 ! how the 
mighty hath fallen.” I have no hesitation, however, in asserting 
that your statement of immoralities at Rome, (which I dare not re- 
peat) is as false as your manner of expressing it is disgusting. Name 
the page of the Catholic historian, who states what you have asserted, 
and I pledge myself again to expose you. But how are we to expect 
the truth of history from a pen, which, in desperation, corrupts the 
sacred text of Scripture itself. Let me give an instance. “ The 
word of God declares,” (you say,) that “ a bishop must be the hus- 
band of one wife.” Titus i. 6. Now we. turn to your reference and 
read, from St. Paul, that you have corrupted the word of God, since 
the apostle says no such thing! !•! St. Paul had no wife, and how 
could he say what you make him say, viz. that “ a bishop must be 
the husband of one wife.” The verse merely declares, in substance, 
that those who had been twice married, were thereby disqualified for 
the office of Bishop, but the word “ must be” is your own addition 
— according, indeed, with the practice of Protestant ministers, if not 
of St. Paul. 

With these observations I might close my letter, since the whole 


345 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

of your letter, besides the vileness of the topics you treat of, is en- 
tirely foreign to the question. But having space, I shall fill it up 
with such matters as I deem proper. And first, it cannot be called 
a digression, if I make a few remarks upon the course which our 
Episcopal friends have thought proper to adopt, in reference to this 
controversy. 

Some months ago, when Bishop H. U. Onderdonk’s'“ charge on 
the rule of faith,” appeared as a succedaneum to your labours, I 
felt it my duty to publish a “ Review ” of it. That the review, by 
exposing the false premises of the charge, destroyed the great body 
of the Bishop’s conclusions, was manifest to all those who are ac - 
quainted with the principles of sound reasoning. And I have occa- 
sion to know* that Episcopalians themselves, who read both produc- 
tions, formed the same opinion, and regarded the subject of the charge, 
as an unseasonable interference in a pending discussion. The Re- 
view was treated by the Episcopal press as very weak ; hopes were 
expressed that no notice should be taken of it ; and a paper called 
the Episcopal Recorder, apparently in a fit of bad humour, accused 
me of having challenged the Bishop to a “ personal controversy;” a 
statement, by the way, which was utterly unfounded in truth. Still 
the circulation of the Review was checked by every underhand ma- 
noeuvre that could be resorted to without palpably betraying the mo- 
tive. In one instance a bookseller, (as I have been told) who en- 
joyed some sectarian patronage , was actually forbidden to keep it 
for sale. And yet the Review was a weak production, not worthy 
of a reply. When you cannot answer an argument, say it is too 
weak to deserve refutation. 

Now, however, the Review has become the subject of anonymous 
“ observations,” in the August number of the “ Church Register;” 
and were I to judge these “ observations” by the style of the “ charge,” 

I should say that both came from the same pen. But the author 
deems it prudent to conceal his name, and I allude to his essay prin- 
cipally on that account. He does not refute the arguments of the 
“ Review ;” nor yet vindicate the fallacies and contradictions, which 
had been pointed out in the language of the “ charge.” He merely 
cavils with fine spun prolixity. He merely nibbles at the substance 
of the “ Review.” And after you have read the whole of his “ob- 
servations,” spread over fourteen pages, you rise from the perusal 
with but vague and confused ideas of the conclusion which the author 
himself intended to establish. He treats the matter under the fol- 
lowing heads : — 

I. “ Appellations ;” — and contends that it is right to call us by the 
nickname, “ Romanists.” Now the English Bishops in the House 
of Peers call us “Roman Catholics,” except when they speak in de- 
rision with a view to insult. And if the author of the “ observations” 
were asked whether an Episcopal Bishop is a Catholic Bishop, he is 
too modest, I am sure, to answer in the affirmative. But Protestants 
pay us a high compliment, when they seek to shake off their own 
name, and to clothe themselves with ours. The thing, however, is 
ridiculous and impossible. 


2X 


346 


CONTROVERSY. 


II. “ Tradition ; various meanings.” This is no new idea. Al- 
most every word in our language has “ various meanings.” 

III. “Tradition; not valueless.” What is its value ? What says 
the author of the “ observations,” “ we hold, for example, that Epis- 
copacy has ample testimony in these (traditional) records.” What 
will your ruling Elders think of this ? Just admit tradition, as far 
as may be necessary for the purposes of the Episcopal Church ; and 
behold — “ Tradition; not valueless .” 

IV. “ Tradition ; its elementary nature.” What ? “ Hearsay,” 
says the author ! Then the preaching of Christ, and the Apostles ; 
the miracles and doctrines of Christianity ; are nothing but “ hear- 
say ;” which does not change its “ elementary nature,” by having 
been afterwards committed to writing. Does the Church Register 
not see that this consequence follows from its assertions ? 

V. “ Tradition, the Council of Nice.” Under this head, the au- 
thor merely quotes Mr. Milnor in opposition to Mr. Hughes, and 
modestly abstains from deciding between them. He speculates on 
the probable ages of the Bishops, who attended the Council; and 
represents Mr. Hughes as contending that they excluded the testi- 
mony of Scripture , in condemning the heresy of Arius. Mr. Hughes, 
fortunately, never said , never meant to say , any such thing. 

VI. “ Tradition ; its fallibility.” Here the author contends that 
whereas the Scripture was “ added and advantageous,” therefore, 
Tradition is fallible. This is vicious reasoning. St. John’s Gospel 
was “ added” and it does not therefore follow that the other three 
were fallible. The Review itself had disposed of this sophistry. 

VII. “ Infallibility.” > Under this head the author breaks down 
the bulwarks of the Christian Religion ; and tells the Infidel that 
Christ appointed a church to be the perpetual witness of divine truth, 
and yet that this Church , thus appointed , may deceive him ! If so, 
for what purpose did Christ appoint it ? 

VIII. “ Infallibility ; its consequences.” Here the author seems 
to imagine that the world is undone, unless men agree to strip Chris- 
tianity of its pretensions to “infallibility,” and reduce it to the un- 
certainty of a doubtful problem. For this service, also, the Deist 
will be grateful. 

IX. “Faith, Infallibility; Opinion.” Under these three words 
the author takes pains to exclude faith in its theological sense, and 
contends that both Catholics and Protestants must be satisfied with 
“opinion.” This also is giving the right hand of fellowship to 
Deists and’ Atheists. For if Christianity be founded on mere opi- 
nion, it rests on the same identical basis, which supports infidelity 
and Atheism. 

But there is one position assumed by the author of these “ obser- 
vations,” which goes farther towards the impeachment of Christian- 
ity, than any thing that I have ever seen, even from a Protestant 
pen. It is under the head of “ infallibility.” The author has dis- 
covered that the inspiration of the Apostles, was of an “ intermittent ” 
character ! Periodical infallibility , the author is willing to grant 
them. But in the intervals, he tells us that even the Apostles were 
capable of erring, in their interpretation of the Gospel ! ! ! ! Here 


347 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

then, is a desperate alternative resorted to, in order to prop up the 
“Charge,” and meet the arguments of the “Review.” Another 
writer would have explained the 1 1th verse of the 2d chapter to the 
Galatians, without destroying the inspiration of the Apostles. The 
fault ascribed to Peter was not the teaching of erroneous doctrine, as 
our “ Observer” would make appear, but the sanctioning of a prac- 
tice which might impede the progress of the Gospel among the 
Gentiles, and was therefore inexpedient. The fault was of practice , 
and not of preaching. And the author of “ observations” should 
have observed this, before he ascribed it to the absence of inspira- 
tion. But he has denied the infallibility of the Apostles. He is a 
Christian , and I leave him to his own reflections on the injury he 
has done to the character of the Christian religion. 

In taking leave of the “ Church Register,” I would beg leave to 
state that I have no disposition to engage in‘ controversy with Epis- 
copalians. But they should not provoke it. They mistake their in- 
terest, and forget their position on the theological map, whenever 
they provoke a controversy with Catholics. They can triumph over 
Presbyterian antagonists in every contest; — but they should recollect 
that they are indebted for the victory, to the use of weapons which 
they borrow from the Catholic Church — and the moment they pro- 
voke a controversy with that church , whose attributes they have ap- 
propriated to themselves, they shall experience a prompt exposure 
and defeat. They shall be found on the field as naked and defence- 
less as any other sect of Protestants. The host of witnesses by 
whose testimony they bear down their Presbyterian adversaries, will 
desert and be arrayed against them in every contest with Catholics. 
They have, however, good people ; learned and respectable clergy. 
Their mode of attacking Catholics is, at least, more genteel, if not 
more successful, than that which Presbyterian ministers adopt. 
They preserve decency, when they write against us. Still it is true, 
however paradoxical it may appear, that whilst they have more of 
truth they have less of consistency , than any other Protestant de- 
nomination. In this respect they are directly the opposite of the 
Unitarians. But without enlarging — I have only to say that the au- 
thor of the “ Charge” on the “ rule of faith,” and of “ observations” 
in the “ Church Register,” has come to your aid, in a way which I 
cannot help regarding, as equally indelicate and unprofitable. Indeli- 
cate, because you were the self-proclaimed champion of Protestant- 
ism ; and unprofitable, because he has not succeeded in the attempt 
one whit better than yourself. 

With regard to your often repeated assertion, that transubstantia- 
tion was introduced A. D. 1215 — your silence in the last letter I 
construe into a tacit acknowledgment of your mistake. Starting 
from that epoch I had traced the doctrine upwards to the apostolic 
age, the apostles, and Christ himself. And instead of contradicting 
the testimonies adduced, you wonder that I did not begin with the 
Bible ! But I ended with it. I gave abundant Scripture. And in- 
stead of meeting my arguments and reasoning, you merely cavil at 
the words employed by Christ, as in fact, the incredulous Jews, who 
heard him, did. Again, you ascribe to Catholics gross notions of 


348 


CONTROVERSY. 


Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist — as if he subsisted in the 
manner of a natural body, with sensible flesh and blood. This is an 
old device of Protestants. Where honest argument is impossible, they 
have recourse to misrepresentation. What Catholics believe , what all 
Christians believed before Carlostadius, what I placed in my last let- 
ter beyond the reach of refutation is, that the body and blood of 
Christ are truly and really present under the appearances of bread 
and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist. This presence is ef- 
fected by the Omnipotence of God , and in virtue of the institution of 
Jesus Christ. “ Do this for a commemoration of me.” 

I shall fill up the remainder of this paper, by establishing the 
eucharistic sacrifice of the new law — commonly called the mass. 
Sacrifice is the supreme action of religion — in which, by offering up 
to God, something in a state of immolation we visibly and publicly 
recognize him as the master of life and death , and the sovereign Lord 
of all things. From the beginning of the world, this action of reli- 
gion was commanded and observed among the people of God. All 
the ancient sacrifices of the Jews had reference to that of Christ, 
upon. the cross, and, on the altars of his church. This latter, is not 
a new sacrifice , or another victim ; but it is the same sacrifice of 
Calvary, perpetuated in an unbloody manner, by Christ’s divine ap- 
pointment ; by which, according to the prophecy of Malachy, “ from 
the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, the name of the 
Lord is great among the Gentiles ; and in every place there is sacri- 
fice ; and there is offered to his name a clean oblation.” Mai. i. 11. 
The same in which the death of the Lord, in the language of St. 
Paul, is shown forth till he come. Now pray what other sacrifice 
is there among the Gentiles, that corresponds with the Prophet’s 
prediction, except the eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic church ? 
— which is literally offered from the rising till the setting sun. And 
how else is the “ death of the Lord shown forth till he come," except 
in the mystic shedding of Christ’s blood in the eucharistic sacrifice 
of the altar ? — even as he commanded. St. Paul alludes to the Priest- 
hood of Christ in direct and positive connexion, not with the bloody 
sacrifice as it was on the cross, but as it is in the Christian eucharist. 
He showed that the priesthood of Christ was not according to that 
of Aaron, but of Melchisedech. And what do we read of him? 
“ Melchisedech, the King of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, 
for he was the pkiest of the most high God ; and he blessed him.” 
Gen. xiv. 18. Do you not perceive then, Rev. Sir, that in the in- 
stitution of the holy Eucharist, Jesr.s Christ actually exercised this 
priesthood of Melchisedech, by changing “ bread and wine,” into 
his own body and blood, and in distributing in this mysterious man- 
ner among his Apostles the flesh of the victim, even before its im- 
molation on the cross ! “ Take ye, and eat.” “ This is my body." 

“ This is my blood which shall be shed for many unto the remission 
of sins.” “ This do for a commemoration of me.” By this act he 
annulled the priesthood of Aaron, and substituted that of Melchise- 
dech. And accordingly from that day the Jewish sacrifice has not 

been offered whereas the Christian sacrifice, according to the 

Priesthood of Christ, and order of Melchisedech, has existed, and 


349 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

does exist wherever the unreformed religion of the Redeemer is 
known from the rising till the setting sun. Hence St. Paul instructs 
the Hebrews in the difference betiveen the Jewish and the Christian 
sacrifice. Having described elsewhere, the order of the Christian 
priesthood, as superior to that of Aaron, he tells the Jews, “ we 
have seen an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve 
the tabernacle.” Heb. xiii. 10. If it be said, that he alluded to the 
“ sacrifice of praise,” mentioned in one of the subsequent verses, I 
reply that St. Paul could not hinder or make it unlawful for the 
Jews to participate in such a sacrifice. He spoke of the sacrifice of 
the new law ; of the altar on which the body and blood of Christ 
was offered, under the appearances of bread and wine, by the new 
priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech. Hence we find 
the early Fathers bearing unanimous testimony to the existence of 
this doctrine , and this belief. And every one of them pointing to the 
eucharistic sacrifice as the fulfilment of Malachy’s prophecy, quoted 
above. St. Justin Martyr, almost, if not quite contemporary with St. 
John the Evangelist, says, “Christ instituted a sacrifice of bread and 
wine, which Christians offer up in every place,” and immediately 
quotes the Prophet Malachy i. 11. (Dialog. Cum. Tryphon.) Irenaeus 
the disciple of Polycarp, says, “ Christ, in consecrating bread and 
wine, had instituted the sacrifice of the new law, which the church 
received from the Apostles, according to the prophecy of Malachy .” 
(Iren. L. iv. 32.) St. Cyprian calls the eucharist, “ a true and full 
sacrifice ,” and adds that “as Melchisedech offered bread and wine, 
so Christ offered the same, namely, his body and blood.” (Epist. 63.) 
All the later Fathers speak the same language — as the learned Centu- 
riators of Magdeburg indignantly acknowledge. 

Here, then, we find that in the days of St. Paul, St. Justin, Ire- 
nseus, Cyprian, and onward till you arrive at the Reformation, the 
religion of Christ had its Priesthood, its altar, and its sacrifice , which 
sacrifice was then, and still is, offered up by the Catholic church in 
every place among the Gentiles. Why then has Protestantism, in its 
blind career, abolished and destroyed them all ? Where does it pre- 
tend to fulfil the prediction of Malachy , touching the “ sacrifice and 
clean oblation among the Gentiles ?” Where is its Priesthood ? 
Where does it perpetuate the immolation of Calvary, “ showing forth 
the death of the Lord till he come?” Where is its “altar?” 
Where are the body and blood of the Lord, which it affects to talk 
about, whilst it boasts of having nothing left but a piece of bread and 
a cup of wine ? 

But then, the “ Popish mass !” Yes, such, indeed, is the appel- 
lation of insult bestowed by Protestant apostacy on the Eucharistic 
sacrifice of the new law, foretold, as we have seen by the prophet, 
instituted by Jesus Christ himself, and believed by all the Christians 
in the world before Martin Luther! But then it detracts from the 
merits of the one sacrifice of the cross ? No — it is the same sacri- 
fice continued in a supernatural manner, by which the church daily, 
throughout the world, presents to the eternal Father, the same victim 
of atonement and propitiation for the sins of men, in which she shows 
forth the death of the Lord till he come ; and in which our souls are 


350 


CONTROVERSY. 


nourished with the body and blood of the Lord. “ But Mr. Breckin 
ridge says that it is idolatrous.” Poor Mr. Breckinridge does not 
understand it. He says this, because others have said so before him, 
and ignorant Protestants think so. “ But how can the Priest bring 
Christ down from heaven by the words of consecration ?” I answer 
that Christ does not cease to be in heaven by being present in the 
Eucharist. And since he was pleased so to appoint and ordain in 
the sacrament of the Eucharist, how can the Protestant minister pre- 
vent him ? “ But Mr. B. says that this doctrine of a sacrifice in the 

Christian church was an invention of the middle ages. So he said of 
the real presence, 1215 was the point beyond which he would not go, 
but I brought the testimony of all the preceding ages against him, 
and now he speaks no more about 1215. “ But Protestants worship 

in spirit and in truth.” They say so ; but it is after their own man- 
ner, and not as the early Christians worshipped. “ But if the Eu- 
charistic sacrifice was a part of the Christian religion, held at all times, 
and by all Christians previous to the Reformation, how came the 
Protestants to abolish it ?” That is a question which I shall proceed 
to answer. 

It will be recollected that, in the first place, Calvin was not a priest, 
and consequently had no power either to consecrate or offer sacrifice. 
Hence it is, that the Presbyterian ministers call themselves bishops 
(overseers) and not priests, having never received any ministerial au- 
thority, more than their founder, for the performance of any priestly 
function. Luther, on the contrary, being a priest, continued to be- 
lieve in the real presence, and to claim the power of consecrating 
until his death. But if Carlostadt and Zuinglius provoked the impla- 
cable resentment of the great Reformer by denying the real presence, 
without his permission: he was determined to enjoy the undivided 
glory of abolishing the sacrifice of mass. However, he had no idea, 
it seems, of abolishing it until after he had heard the arguments 
brought against it, in a dispute which he held with the Devil on the 
subject. He quotes the disputation at length in which he argued 
strongly for the mass, but he was finally obliged to yield to the supe- 
rior reasoning of his infernal Tutor, and the mass was accordingly 
abolished. Protestants, I fear, will not be edified at discovering such 
intimacy, between the father of the Reformation, and the father of 
lies. But I only quote what Luther himself recorded in his writings 
(Wittem. ed. (1558.) vol. vii. p. 228, 229, 230.) Here then we see 
how and why the Eucharistic sacrifice, was proscribed by the two 
great divisions of Protestantism on the continent of Europe. It was 
soon after this abolished in England by act of Parliament , and by 
similar means was it suppressed in other countries. 

Before these events all the Christian countries in the universe , 
believed in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass, as Catholics still 
believe in it. And yet Protestants are generally as ignorant or as 
unmindful of these important facts, as if their doctrine of mere bread 
and wine had originated with the Apostles, instead of the Reformers. 
This was so far from being the case, that Luther in writing against 
those who began to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, 
says “ the Devil seems to have mocked mankind in proposing to 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


351 


them a heresy so ridiculous and contrary to Scripture , as that of the 
Zuinglians.” (Op. Luth. Defens. Verb. Coen®.) 

Having thus established the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacri- 
fice of the new law, instituted and appointed by Jesus Christ, be- 
lieved by the church, and rejected by the Reformation about three 
hundred years ago. — I shall now make a few remarks on what Pro- 
testants call denying the cup to the laity. They accuse the church 
of dividing the Sacrament, and administering it in a manner con- 
trary to the command of Christ. In both charges, however, they 
are deceived by their deceivers. For in the first place, Christ is 
present, whole and entire, under each of the species of the Sacra- 
ment, as much as under both. Consequently there is no division 
of the Sacrament ; since the laity receive in the communion, under 
the form of bread, that same body and blood of the Lord, which the 
Priest receives, in the action of sacrificing on the altar, under the 
separate forms of both bread and wine. But they (Protestants) con- 
tend that, in as much as Christ, at the last Supper, administered this 
Eucharist under both forms, therefore, say they, all persons are bound 
to receive under both. “ Drink ye all of this.” To this I reply, 
that Christ in these words addressed the Apostles and Ministers of 
the church, whom he appointed to consecrate and offer the sacrifice , 
which he had just instituted. “ This do for a commemoration of 
me.” The words “drink ye,” and “ this do,” are addressed to the 
same persons. And if the former be a precept, to the laity, as well 
as to the ministry ; it will necessarily follow that so is the latter ; 
and yet Protestants do not allow the laity to consecrate , or pronounce 
what they call the “ blessing” over their Sacrament of mere bread 
and wine. Why not? if both were precepts. 

But it is said that in the earlier ages of the church, communion 
was administered to the laity in both kinds. I answer, so it was : but 
the great question is, was the administration of it under both kinds, 
taught to be essential for the reception of the Sacrament ? I say 
no. And the proof is, that it was frequently even then administered 
only under one kind. Will Mr. Breckinridge deny this ? If he do, 
I shall take pains to instruct him. If he do, I shall quote, beginning 
with the second century, Tertullian, St. Dyonisius, of Alexandria, 
St. Cyprian, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, &c to prove that he is as 
much mistaken , as when he said, that “ Transubstantiation was as 
young as 1215.” It will be easy to show him that learned Protest- 
ants have admitted this fact. Among others, the Protestant Bishops 
Forbes, White, and Montague, of England, not only admit the fact, 
as to the ancient practice of the church , but acknowledge that the 
authority for giving the communion under both kinds, is rather from 
tradition , than from Scripture ! Cassander and Grotius, make 
similar acknowledgments on the subject. ' 

If you are not satisfied with these, I shall have the pleasure of intro- 
ducing you to the Calvinistic Synod of your own brethren, held at 
Poictiers, in France, 1550. Where it was decreed that “the bread 
of the Lord’s Supper ought to be administered to those who cannot 

drink wine.” (Lord’s Supper, C. iii. p. 7.) Even the acts of 

Parliaments which established the communion under both kinds in 


352 


CONTROVERSY. 


England, made it lawful to administer in one kind only , when ne- 
cessity required. (Heylfn’s Hist, of Ref. p. 58; and Sparrow’s Col- 
lection, page 17.) What have you to say against all these witnesses? 
Here are the united testimonies of early Fathers, Episcopal Bishops, 
Protestant Parliaments, and even a Presbyterian Synod , all against 
you ? What will you have to say for yourself? 

But it may be asked why Protestants, in the face of such evi- 
dence, still declaim against the Catholic usage on this point, whereas 
they themselves, have thus acknowledged it to be matter of discipline , 
subject to the regulation of a Synod, or of a Parliament ? In answer 
to this, I can only say, that the Reformers seemed to have had no 
rule, to guide their spirit of change, except the rule of mere gratui- 
tous opposition ; — first turned against the Church by them all ; and 
then, by each, against the other. Thus, for example, on the subject 
now treated of, Luther tells us, “ if a Council ordained or permitted 
both kinds , in spite of the Council, says he, we would take but one, 
or neither, and curse those who should take both.” (Form. Miss. 
Tom. II. p. 384. 386.) This glory of originating, seems to have 
been common to all the Reformers ; and there is no other reason 
why the Reformation might not have been confined to Lutheranism ; 
except that Zuinglius and Calvin would have been subordinate in 
Saxony, instead of being (as ambition prompted,) supreme in Switzer- 
land ; seconds in Wittemburg, instead of firsts, in Zurich and Geneva. 
Hence they disagreed in almost every thing except in hostility to- 
wards the Church, and more especially towards the Pope. But for 
the rest, they quarrelled regularly ; wrote against, and reviled each 
other; and if we believe what they have written, it will be difficult to 
escape the conviction that, a more impious or wicked set of men never 
insulted heaven, by pretending to espouse the cause of religion on 
earth. If we look along the line of their labours from Luther at 
one end, to Socinus at the other, we will see Revelation made to run 
the gauntlet, and the body of Christian doctrine rudely torn, limb 
from limb. The object was to cut out the cancer of Popery from 
the breast of religion, and thus, the daughter of God, brought under 
the operation of every “ reforming” quack, who had nerve enough to 
apply the knife, was wounded, with gash after gash, as she passed 
from one to the other, until the steel of Socinus touched her heart, 
and she expired ! Such has been the work of the Reformation : 
and Mr. Breckinridge says, that the work of the Reformation is 
“ the religion of Christ ! !” Not only this ; he has actually promised 
to prove it ! ! 

I do not mean to say that the Reformers never agreed. Dudith, 
one of their number tells us, that they sometimes agreed in drawing 
up a “ Confession of Faith,” but he does not forgetto add, that they 
quarrelled about what they had written, almost before the ink was 
dried on the paper. There is another remarkable instance in which 
I find six Reformers, including Bucer and Melanchton, agreeing with 
the great leader of the Reformation. Now as these men are the fathers 
of the Protestant religion, and as you are about to show that “ the 
Protestant religion is the religion of Christ,” I deem it proper to sub- 
mit the case for your consideration. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


353 


I allude to the “ indulgence” granted by these new Popes of Ger- 
many, to the Landgrave of Hesse, by virtue of which his Royal 
Highness was authorized to be the husband of “ two” wives at the 
same time. They however took the precaution to recommend that it 
should be done as secretly as possible. And accordingly, his Royal 
Highness did marry a second wife, Margaretde Saal, in March, 1540. 

Now, Rev. Sir, do not insinuate that this fact is without founda- 
tion, it is known to all the learned men of Europe and America, and 
if any one is curious to see the documents here referred to, I shall 
have great pleasure in submitting to his perusal a copy in Latin and 
French of this infamous correspondence, as well as of the marriage 
contract; attested by the regular notary public, as taken from the 
imperial archives. When, therefore, you set about redeeming your 
pledge , by attempting to prove that the religion of the Reformation 
is the religion of Christ, do not forget this decision of the Reformers 
in favour of polygamy. You have said that “ indulgences are a 
bundle of licenses to commit sin,” and here is a Protestant “ indul- 
gence,” corresponding exactly with your definition. If you wished 
to know the meaning of a Catholic “indulgence,” you might have 
learned from our catechisms, or any Catholic child in the street, that 
it is “ the remission of canonical penance , or of temporal punish- 
ment, which often remains after the guilt of eternal punishment of 
sin have been remitted in the sacrament of penance.” 

When you waste your time, in attemping to break the illustrious 
chain of apostolic succession which links the present Bishop of Rome 
to the first Apostle, you cannot imagine how much you expose your- 
self, in the judgment of those who are acquainted with ecclesiastical 
history. The year “ 1215” was nothing to it. Equally ludicrous is 
your assertion that the Catholic church adopted the Arian heresy ; — 
that church, always in communion with the See of Rome, branded 
Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, So- 
cinianism, and every other “ ism” from the commencement of Chris- 
tianity, that presumed to corrupt the doctrine of which she was the 
guardian, and which she received from the Apostles and from Christ. 
In a word, you had better return to the defence of the “ Protestant 
religion.” Tell us wHAT-it is. How we shall know it by its doc- 
trine. Does it acknowledge Prelacy ? Does it deny infant baptism ? 
Does it destroy free will ? Does it teach that men are damned and 
saved by the absolute force of predestination? 

Tell us where it w r as.... and by whom it was possessed before 
Luther. Tell us from whom the Reformers received authority to make 
a new religion. Was it from men ? They w r ere disowned by all the 
Christian world. Was it from God ? Then where are their mira- 
cles ? Whence do the present clergy of Protestantism derive their 
ministerial character ? Have they a single evidence to show that they 
are not mere laymen, vested with titles which are essentially defec- 
tive. These, Rev. Sir, are the main questions. These are the cruci- 
ble, from which the Protestant religion cannot pass, and to which, 
you are manifestly afraid to trust it. Come up then, I pray you, to 
the task you have assumed, and meet the question. Let us decide 
it, and proceed to other matters. But if you cannot, because the 

2 Y 


354 


CONTROVERSY. 


thing is impossible , then give it up, and let some other question be 
placed at the head of your letters. You have promised to come 
forward with your arguments letter after letter, and if you cannot 
find arguments to prove that “ the Protestant religion is the religion 
of Christ,” let me know it, and I will cease to press you on the 
matter. I now request the publishers to place the rules of the dis- 
cussion, at the head of every letter, in order that all men may see 
your disregard of the name with which you signed them. My letter 
No. 23, is unanswered , it is a letter not of abuse, but of solid argu- 
ment, founded on testimonies which cannot be called in question. 
Permit me to request that you will read it again, and try to answer 
it. Reflect on the arguments and evidences, and do not allow the ex- 
hausted patience of your Protestant readers to suppose that the Pro- 
testant religion is not susceptible of at least, some sort of defence. 
You perceive how badly you have succeeded, by straying from the 
Protestant religion, and taking your stand against the real presence 
atthejear “1215,” with the bold assertion that the doctrine was 
unknown before that epoch. In reference to the sacrifice of mass, and 
communion under one kind, your discursive pen has been equally 
unfortunate. 

Return then, Rev. Sir, I pray you, to “ the question.” The whole 
community of our readers are crying “ Question,” “ Question.” 
Take up the difficulties stated at the head of this letter, and by remo- 
ving them, show us that “ the Protestant religion is the religion of 
Christ.” Yours, &c 


J Hit Hughes 


CONTROVERSY. No. XXX 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF CHRIST I 

Philadelphia, August 22, 1833. 

To the Rev. John Hughes. 

Sir , 

A pious, sensible, and well-bred man, 

Will not insult me ; and no other, can ! 

The exposure (in my last letter) of the immoralities, forged mira- 
cles and superstitions , of the Church of Rome , seem deeply to have 
disturbed you. They are new things to most of our fellow-citizens ; 
and yet they are so true, so shocking, so incapable of explanation or 
defence, that I do not wonder you are agitated by such disclosures. 
I can both pardon and pity you, for the rude and ungentlemanly ex- 
plosion which ensues. 

There are two very important facts, however, connected with this 
tirade against me. The first is the undesigned denunciation which 
you utter against your own church, in thus wantonly assailing me. 
In all I have said on the subject of “ immoralities” in the Church of 
Rome , I used the very language of your own authors. Let the reader 
turn to my Letter (No. XXVIII.) and he will see this to be literally 
true. I once thought of giving these Roman Catholic authorities in 
the original Latin, or other unknown tongue, from a desire to spare 
the feelings of our readers ; for most truly as you have said, the nar- 
rative is “ a Magdalen report.” It is a report, by your own writers, 
of the debauches of Popes, and the infamy of Priests, and Monks, 
and Nuns, in a church calling itself holy , and sending to perdition all 
who dissent from her. I blushed while I read them ; I shuddered 
while I transcribed them. But the object was to make these evils 
known , and the only choice was between suppressing them, or giving 
them, as I did, in the language of the country. But if they have 
been perpetrated in your church ; (as your standard-authors say,) and 
if you are so shocked at my extracts from their histories, how much 
more should the deeds themselves revolt you ? Then, when you 
denounce me for exposing these enormities, do you not (though un- 
consciously) pass the heaviest sentence against the institutions and 
the clergy of your church, by whom they have been committed ? 

The other important fact is this; that you give this pledge: “I 
have no hesitation however, in asserting, that your statement of the 
immoralities at Rome, (which I dare not repeat) is as false as your 
manner of expressing it is disgusting. Name the page of the Catho- 
lic historian, who states what you have asserted, and I pledge my- 
self to expose you.” (Letter No. XXIX. 2d column.) This, in- 
deed, is a most auspicious promise ; and I meet you at once, with the 
following Roman Catholic historians. Thuanus , Book 37, page 776. 
A. D. 1566 ; as cited in my last letter, “ where the writer states that 
the Senate of Rome, instigated by the clergy, interceded with the 
Pope not to expel the courtezans from Rome, adding as a reason, 
that if he did, the chastity of their families would be endangered by 
the Priests.” Barronius’s Annals, Tom. X. pages 765, 766. A. D. 
f)08. Where this Roman Catholic historian informs us, “ that Theo- 
dora- a courtezan of noble family, obtained supreme control in Rome, 
355 


356 


CONTROVERSY. 


that she expelled the lawful Popes, and put violent and nefarious men 
into the Papal chair ; that Pope Sergius III. committed adultery with 
her daughter; and their son John, the offspring of their crimes, was 
afterwards Pope himself ; he says they were apostate Popes, snd not 
Apostolical ; calls the times deplorable ; and the scandal overwhelm- 
ing; says the church was governed by strumpets ; and forgotten by 
God.” He quotes also various Roman Catholic authors in proof, 
viz. : Luitprand, Sigebert, Auxilius, Adam, &c. Dupin, a Roman 
Catholic historian , Vol. 4. Cent. 10. Chap. 2.; confirms the above 
disgusting narrative ; and gives also at the same time a history of 
the Popedom, during the holy lives of Popes Formosus : Stephen 
VI. ; John IX. ; Benedict IV. ; Sergius ; John X. ; Leo VI. ; Ste- 
phen VII. ; John XI. ; John XII. ; &c. which for blood, debauch, 
murder, rapine, and manifold villany, exceeded the worst days of 
Heathen Rome. Of Sergius he says, “ this man is esteemed a mon- 
ster, not only for his ambition, and the violent proceedings he was 
guilty of, but on account of his loose morals.” He had a bastard 
son who was afterwards promoted to the Popedom, as John XI. 
“ He tells us this John was a monster ; Stephen the VI. was stran- 
gled ; Romanus was a Pope a few months ; Theodoras only twenty 
days ; and Leo V. forty days ; Sergius usurped the Holy See, im- 
prisoning his predecessors ; John XII. was a slave to vice and de- 
bauch.” The same writer (Vol. 7. c. 16. page 14.) says, “ Pope 
Alexander VI. died August 17, 1503, by the poison which he had 
prepared for another, lqaded with the iniquities of himself and his 
natural son Caesar Borgea.” I present to your consideration this 
picture. These are specimens of the Popes. 

As to the Priesthood at large, and also the Monasteries, Nunneries, 
&e., and the immoral doctrines as well as lives of the Clergy, Jesu- 
its, & c. I have in several successive letters given full, satisfactory, 
unanswered, and unnoticed authorities. To them I now refer you. 
If they are not sufficient, enough is in reserve. The worst, the half 
has not been told ! 

Now according to your promise, I call on you to meet these testi- 
monies from Roman Catholic historians. Do it with candour, and 
without evasion, so that the community may see before we close this 
discussion, one example from your pen, of ingenuous thinking, and 
an elevated love, not of victory, but of truth. 

In my last letter I exposed the palpable rebellion of the Church 
of Rome against the laws of God, on the subject of the celibacy of 
the clergy. You make no other reply than the following, which 
supplies with insolence, the lack of argument. “ But how are we 
to expect the truth of history from a pen, which, in desperation, cor- 
rupts the sacred text of Scripture itself.” 

Here we have a sample of your usual disingenuousness. In 1 Tim. 
iii. 2. it is written in your standard Bible, “ Oportet ergo Episcopum 
irreprehensibilem, esse unius uxoris, virum.” This is correctly 
translated in our English version, “ a Bishop must be blameless, the 
husband of one wife.” Again in Titus i. 6. “ If any (Bishop) be 
blameless, the husband of one wife.” Will you compare these verses 
and say then, with reckless disregard of truth, that I corrupt the sa - 


357 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

ned text , when your own Bible confronts you ? Does not this dis- 
tinctly declare that a Bishop may marry ; that if he should he must 
be the husband of one wife ! And in Titus i. 6. the reference is not 
to a Bishop who once had a wife, but who was living in that relation 
when the Apostle wrote, viz. “ if a Bishop be — the husband of one 
wife.” Peter “ the first Pope,” had a wife , though Paul had not; 
and Paul writes, “ marriage is honourable in all.” But your church 
forbids marriage to her clergy. Is not this fighting against God ? 
While the word of God thus extends to all the privilege of matri- 
mony, your Bellarmine says, (I hope you will notice this also in 
your next letter.) “ It is a greater evil to marry than to commit for- 
nication,” i. e. for those under a vow of celibacy. (Bell. b. 2. De 
Mon. c. 34.) and Cardinal Campegjus (Apud. Sleidan. b. 4.) openly 
declared before the magistrates of Strasburg ; “ that it was a greater 
sin for Priests to marry than to keep several concubines in their own 
houses.” Quod sacerdotes mariti fiant, gravius esse peccatum, quam 
si plurimas domimeritrices alant ! 

We come next to the charge of bigotry, and an intolerant, exclu- 
sive spirit. In proof of this I adduce the creed of your church, the 
declaration of a Pope, and the Rhemish Translators at large. As 
you deny none of these, we are, I suppose, to take them for granted. 
Your rejoinder, in charging a similar spirit on the Presbyterian 
church, is of a piece with your extracts from Tertullian, the works 
of Luther, Wesley, and the life of Bishop Jewel. In citing a para- 
graph from the 25th chap, of our Confession of Faith, which I insert 
below, entire , you leave out that part which is put in italics. It is 
as follows : “ The visible church, which is also Catholic , or universal , 
under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law ) 
consists of all those throughout the world, that profess the true reli- 
gion, together with their children ; and is the kingdom of the Lord 
Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no 
ordinary possibility of salvation.” On this passage thus mutilated 
you make the following extraordinary comment. “ This doctrine 
secures heaven to Presbyterians and their children, and denies the 
‘ possibility’ of salvation to all the rest of mankind, Protestants as 
well as Catholics. And yet you talk about bigotry.” Perhaps no 
conclusion was ever drawn having less connexion with its promises. 
It is utterly gratuitous and wantonly perverse. So far from being 
exclusive , the name of Presbyterian is not mentioned in this para- 
graph. The definition takes away all limits more narrow than “ the 
universal church under the Gospel ;” and it makes the church to 
“ consist ,” not of Presbyterians, but “ of all those throughout the 
world that profess the true religion, together with their children.” 
In the very next chapter, also, is the following distinct condemnation 
of all narrow feelings and bigoted opinions. “ Saints by profession, 
are bound to maintain a holy fellowship and communion in the wor- 
ship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend 
to their mutual edification ; as also in relieving each other in outward 
things, according to their several abilities and necessities, which com- 
munion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those, 
who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.” In 


358 


CONTROVERSY. 


chap. 1. of book 1. form of government sec. 5. it is written, “ they 
(i. e. the Presb. ch.) believe that there are truths and forms, with 
respect to which, men of good character and principles may differ. 
And in all this they think it the duty, both of private Christians and 
societies, to exercise mutual forbearance towards each other.” Such 
is the spirit of liberality and love which our standards proclaim, and 
in which our people glory. Thus it is that we delight to extend the 
right hand of fellowship to all who love our Lord Jesus, and say 
“ hail sister ” to every church that “ holds the head,” that is Christ. 
To you we leave the service of making the truth “ intolerant .” It 
is a discovery reserved for the Papacy ; and you glory in your shame 
when you connect such contradictions. Now in contrast with the 
above extracts, hear the doctrine of the church of Rome. The canon 
law declares “ it is necessary to salvation for ev’ery human being to 
be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” The creed of the church, by 
which all its members are bound, under a solemn oath, professes, 
“ that without the true faith of the Roman Catholic church, none can 
be saved.” Mr. Hughes says, letter 27, “no Christians agreed with 
Protestants in doctrine, from the days of Christ until the coming of 
Luther ; and very few since .” Of course very few Protestants 
are saved ! Indeed this is more than intimated, in the succeeding 
paragraph. If this be so, then truly it is one of the greatest cala- 
mities that ever befell the American Protestants, that you have been 
selected to “ preach up to them” “ the only true church ;” for at 
every step, you confirm them more and more l n fatal error ! I wdl 
only add on this topic, that to this day, once every year, the Pope at 
Rome, publicly, and in full form , excommunicates all Protestants ; 
and absolution is refused to all those who harbor these heretics , who 
read their books , &c. &c., and all ecclesiastical persons (Mr. Hughes 
included) are required to publish the Bull, that the faithful may know 
its contents ! 

I would now resume the discussion on Transubstantiation. This, 
with its adjuncts is undoubtedly one of the distinguishing, and radi- 
cal doctrines of the church of Rome. You have presented it at 
large, in Letter No. 27. Before proceeding to examine your argu- 
ments I will refresh the memory of the reader by giving the doctrine 
in the words of your church. The Council of Trent at its 13th 
Session thus decreed touching the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 
“In the first place, the holy Council teacheth, and openly and plainly 
professeth, that our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man , is truly, 
really, and substantially contained in the pure sacrament of the holy 
Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, and under 
the species of those sensible objects.” “ By the consecration of the 
bread and wine there is effected a conversion of the whole substance, 
the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of 
the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood, 
which conversion is fitly and properly termed by the Holy Catholic 
Church, Transubstantiation .” “ If any one shall deny that in the 

most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there are contained truly, 
really, and substantially, the body and blood , together with the soul 
and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ ; or say that he is in it only 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


359 


as a sign or figure, or by his power, let him be accursed.” The fol- 
lowing extracts from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, part 
2d, Chap, the 4th, define the method of consecration, &c. &c. “ Here 
the pastor will also explain to the faithful that in this sacrament not 
only the true body of Christ, and all the constituents of a true body , 
as bones and sinews (velut ossa et nervos) but also Christ, whole and 
entire are contained.” — The Catholic Church, then, firmly believes, 
and openly professes, that in this sacrament the loords of consecration 
accomplish three things ; first, that the true and real body of Christ , 
the same that was born of the Virgin , and is notv seated at the right 
hand of the Father in heaven, is rendered present in the holy Eucha- 
rist ; secondly, that however repugnant it may appear to the dictate 
of the senses, no substance of the elements remains in the sacraments ; 
and thirdly, a natural consequence of the two preceding, and one 
which the words of consecration also express, that the accidents 
which present themselves to the eyes, or other senses, exist in a 
wonderful and ineffable manner, without a subject . All the accidents 
of bread and wine we see ; but they inhere in no substance , and ex- 
ist independently of any. The substance of the bread and wine is 
so changed into the body and blood of our Lord, that they altogether 
cease to be the substance of bread and wine.” “ The accidents can- 
not inhere in the body and blood of Christ ; they must therefore, 
above the whole order of nature , subsist of themselves, inhering in 
no subject.” Finally, the efficacy of the consecrating act, depends 
upon the intention of the officiating priest, so that if he lacks the 
intention, to Transubstantiate, no change takes place, and the bread 
and wine remain the same, (see 6th chap. Coun. Tr. Can. 11.) 
“ Whoever shall affirm that when ministers perform and confer a 
sacrament, it is not necessary that they should at least have the in- 
tenlion to do what the church does, let him be accursed.” 

In defence of this doctrine, you adduced in letter No. 27, the 6th 
chap, of John. In letter 28, I exposed so fully your improper use 
of that passage, that you seem to have abandoned its further aid in 
defence of Transubstantiation. Your application of it to the defence 
of the real presence, is refuted by two Popes, four cardinals, two 
archbishops, five bishops, and doctors, and professors of divinity to 
such a number as to make in all no less than thirty Papal writers, 
who deny that the 6th chap, of John gives any support to Transub- 
stantiation. The only other portions of Scripture which you adduce 
in support of this doctrine, are found in the account of the institution 
of the Eucharist given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. The 
Douay and English translations used in this country, differ so little 
from each other in these passages, that either will suffice to exhibit 
the language of institution. YVe give them in our translation. 

Matthew xxvi. 26 — 29. “ And as they were eating, Jesus took 
bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and 
said, take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave 
thanks, and gave it to. them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is 
my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the 
remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth 
of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you 


360 


CONTROVERSY. 


in my Father’s Kingdom.” Mark xiv. 22 — 25, differs from Matthew 
only by adding, “ and they all drank of it.” Luke xxii. 19 — 2'0, 
adds : “This do in remembrance of me.” 1 Cor. xi. 23- — 27. “The 
Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; 
and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; 
this is my body, which is broken for you ; this do in remembrance 
of me. After the same manner also, he took the cup, when he had 
supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood ; this 
do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. Wherefore, 
whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, un- 
worthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” 

I. The question between us is not, whether Christ be present in 
this Sacrament ; but how he is present. Evangelical Protestants all 
allow, as their standards clearly evince, that Christ is spiritually 
present ; and the truth of Christ’s words recorded above, they un- 
doubtedly believe. But they utterly deny that the bread and wine 
are by the consecration of a priest changed into the very, the real 
body and blood “bones and sinews” of Christ, so that the bread 
and wine no longer remain ; but under their appearance is contained 
that same Christ who was born of the Virgin, together with his soul 
and divinity. This we deny to be meant jn the words of the insti- 
tution. In fact it is upon the wrong interpretation of these passages 
that the proof of transubstantiation rests. Here observe, there is no 
necessity of taking the words literally. You admit that there are 
figures used in the Bible. Why then take these literally P When 
the Apostle tells us (Ephesians y. 30.) “ We are members of 
Christ’s body , of his flesh , and of his bones >•” and calls it “ a great 
mystery” — is it literal or figurative P Surely he does not mean to 
say the bones and flesh of Christ are substantially in every believer? 
When Christians are said, (Hebs. vi. 4.) “To be made partakers 
of the Holy Ghost,” are we to understand that they are really dei- 
fied P Or (1 Cor. x. 17.) “We being many, are 'one bread and 
one body.” Does it mean that all Christians are first compounded 
into one body , and then that body is transmitted into one great loafp 
Yet literally taken it must be so ? You will not deny that figures 
may be used in a sacrament. For this is the very nature of a sacra- 
ment, to be an outward sign and figure of some invisible grace and 
benefit. Besides, the words of this sacrament are replete with 
figure. When it is said, “ this cup is the New Testament in my 
blood,” there is a figure ; viz. the cup is put for the wine ; for if it 
be literal , then the cup is changed (and not the wine ;) and the cup 
is changed into the New Testament , and not into Christ's blood. 
Or if you say that it is the wine which is changed into a Testament, 
then we have this absurdity, viz. that the testator , is also the testa- 
ment. But you will not deny that it is by a figure that the cup is 
called the New Testament. I ask, then, why it may not be by a 
figure, that the wine is called the blood of Christ, and the bread his 
body ? Again, these words “ this cup is the New Testament in my 
blood,” plainly show that what is in the cup is not really the blood 
of Christ. For suppose “ this cup” to mean “ this blood,” then we 
make Christ say “ this blood is the New Testament in my blood 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 361 

that is, the blood of Jesus Christ is in the blood of Jesus Christ. In 
order to avoid this absurdity, Bellarmine actually makes two sorts of 
blood of Jesus Christ. (Book 1. chap. 11. of the Eucharist.) The 
conclusion, then, is irresistable, that since literally taken, it makes 
nonsense, it is spoken in a figure. Besides, if the words “ this is 
my body, are to be taken literally, then the bread is changed into 
the body of the Priest , and not the body of Christ, as it is the Priest 
who speaks. For your church holds, that the Priest (tanquam 
gerens personam Christi,) personates Christ , when he repeats the 
words of consecration ; and that they* operate what they signify. 
Hence it is the priest’s body and not Christ’s, which is wrought into 
the Sacrament ; and the priest’s body which the people worship. If 
not, then the words of consecration, were only historical , and used 
m 2 . figure. Observe still further, that the words are not, “ this 
shall be my body,’’ nor “ this is made , or shall be changed into my 
body,” but “ this is my body.” Now the word “ this,” can refer 
to no other substance, than that which was present when our Lord 
spoke that word. But the only substance which was then present 
was bread. This is acknowledged by your own authorities. In the 
gloss upon Gratian, (De Consecrat. Dist. Cap. 55.) it is said, “it is 
impossible that bread should be the body of Christ.” Bellarmine 
also owns, (Book 1. chap. 1. on the Eucharist) “ that these words, 
viz. i this is my body,’ must be taken as a figure, bread being the 
body of Christ in signification, (significative) or else it is plainly 
absurd and impossible ; for it cannot be that bread should be the 
body of Christ.” It clearly appears, then, that when Christ said 
“ this is my body,” ht mpq.nt it in a figure. Hence, in Luke 22. 
19, it is written : “ He took bread and gave thanks and gave it unto 
them saying, this is my body, which is given for you, this do in re- 
membrance of me.” Now what did he call his body, but that which 
he gave to his disciples? What did he give to them, but that which 
he broke P And what was it vhe broke, but what he took P And 
does not Luke tell us, in so many words that he took bread P Then 
was it not of the bread he spoke when he said “ this is my body P” 
But could bread be his body in any other way than as a sacrament, 
in a figure, or as he expressly tells us, a memorial of his body ? 
The Apostle Paul puts this subject beyond doubt, (in 1st Cor. 10. 
16.) “ the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the 
body of Christ.” Is not this a distinct declaration, that the bread is 
the body of Christ ? And if so, did not Bellarmine rightly say that 
we must understand it figuratively , since it is impossible that bread 
should be literally the body of Christ ? Let it not be said that Paul 
meant that which once was bread, but now is the real body of Christ; 
for he says “ the bread which we break >” and you own that the 
real body of Christ cannot be broken. So that it is bread and only 
'biead which is meant in the words of institution ; and : therefore, 
when Christ said “ this is my body,” he spoke of it sacramentally , 
and in a figure ; and not of his rea/.body. 

This is, if possible, still more plain in the other part of the Sacra* 
ment. Matth. xxvi. 27, 28. “ He took the cup and gave thanks, 

and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it, for this is my blood 

2 Z 


362 


CONTROVERSY. 


of the New Testament or as Luke and Paul recite it, “ this cup 
is the New Testament in my blood.” Now your church acknow- 
ledges, that Christ delivered these words, before the act of consecra- 
tion ; and therefore, before the change took place. Hence it was 
wine, which he called his blood ; it was wine of which he said, 
“drink ye all of it;” or as he also called it “the fruit of the 
vine.” Now since you must confess that it is impossible for wine y 
or the fruit of the vine to be really the blood of Christ, and since 
notwithstanding, Christ called it his blood before consecration, he 
could have meant nothing else than his blood in a figure , or sacra- 
mentally. 

It appears then, incontestably from an examination of the words 
of the institution, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not taught 
in them ; that so far from this, it reduces the language of Christ to 
inextricable difficulties and absurdities to put such a meaning on his 
words ; and that the only consistent and intelligible sense of which 
they are capable is that which evangelical Protestants give them. It 
is remarkable also, how strictly our interpretation accords with the 
usage of the . sacred writers. Thus, Genesis xli. 26. “ The seven 

good kine are (i. e. represent) seven years; and the seven good 
ears are , seven years.” Daniel vii. 24. “ The ten horns out of this 
kingdom are (i. e. signify) ten kings that shall arise.” 1 Cor. x. 4. 
“ They drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that 
rock was (represented) Christ.” Rev. i. 20. “ The seven stars are 
(represent) the angels of the seven churches ; and the seven candle- 
sticks are (represent) the seven churches.’’' Matth. xiii. 38, 39. 
“ The good epp.d are (represent or signify) the children of the king- 
dom ; the tares are (signify) the children of the wicked one : the 
enemy is (signifies) the devil ; the harvest is (signifies) the end of 
the world ; and the reapers are (signify) the angels.” With such 
undoubted testimony from the word of God, who can question it, 
that when Christ says, “ this is my body,” he means this represents 
my body. We here subjoin a very striking example from Augus- 
tine (De doctrin. Christian, Lib. 3. cap. 46.) which speaks volumes 
as to your false doctrine of Transubstantiation, whether you found it 
on the 6th chapter of John, or on the words of institution. “ If, 
says he, the saying be perceptive, either forbidding a wicked action, 
or commanding to do that which is good, it is no figurative saying ; 
but if it seems to command any villainy or wickedness, or forbid 
what is profitable and good, it is figurative. This saying, * except 
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood ye have no 
life in you,’ (John vi. 53,) seems to command a villainous , or wicked 
thing; it is therefore a figure, enjoining us to communicate in the 
passion of our Lord, and to lay it up in dear and profitable remem- 
brance , that his flesh was crucified and wounded for our sakes.” 

From the above examination, how clear is the proof, that the word 
of God entirely fails you in sustaining the doctrine of Transubstanti- 
ation. But to show you that this is not merely a Protestant state- 
ment, let me point you again to Roman Catholic authorities. Bellar- 
mine admits, (Book III. chap. 23. on Euch.) “ though the Scripture 
quoted by us above seems clear to us, and ought to convince any 


363 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

man who is not froward, yet it may justly be doubted whether it be 
so, (that is, whether Transubstantiation can be proved from Scrip- 
ture) when the most learned and accute men, such as Seotus in par- 
ticular, hold a contrary opinion. ” Cardinal Cajetan, a famous Roman 
Catholic writer, says, (Notes on Aquinas, p. 3. q. 75. Art. 1. &c.) 
“The other point which the Gospel has not expounded expressly , that 
is the change of the bread into the body of Christ ; we have received 
from the church .” And again, “There appears nothing in the Gos- 
pel to compel any man to understand these words, ‘ this is my 
body ' in a proper sense. Nay, the presence (of Christ) which the 
church holdeth, cannot be proved, unless the declaration of the church 
be added.” These words are expunged from the Roman edition of 
Cajetan, by order of Pope Pius V. ! ! ! It is also undeniable, that 
Durand, Ocham, and the Cardinal of Cambray, Gabriel Biel, Cardi- 
nal Contarinus, Melcho.ir Cane, and Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, a 
martyr of your church, unite with Seotus, in granting that the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation cannot be proved from Scripture. And 
now, here we might rest our cause. For if the word of God will not 
sustain transubstantiation, in vain do you go to the authority of the 
church, or the testimony of the Fathers. But we will meet you at 
all points. 

II. We come, then next to the testimony of the Fathers. On this 
subject we remark : 1. That their unanimous consent is necessary 
to prove an article of faith in your church. It is a part of your rule 
of faith (See Creed of Pius IV.) “never to take, or interpret the 
sacred Scriptures, otherwise than according to the unanimous con - 
sent of the Fathers .” Of course, if the Fathers are divided on 
this subject, they. avail you nothing. 2. It will abundantly appear in 
what follows, to say the least, that, the body of their testimony is 
entirely against transubstantiation. 3. If this be true, then it can- 
not, on your own principles, be an article of faith in the church of 
Christ. 4. If you deny this, then all the Fathers who agree with 
Protestants were Heretics. But of the many cited below, who de- 
nied the real presence, none was on that account excommunicated 
as a heretic. Then.it follows that all such were Protestants in their 
principles, and that our doctrine was not only tolerated, but professed 
and held at large by the Fathers of the church. 5. Such liberties have 
been taken by your church with the writings of the Fathers, and the 
pruning knife and various forgeries have been so frequently resorted 
to, that every testimony in our favour is to .be estee-med incontro- 
vertible indeed. 6. The fathers often used strongly figurative lan- 
guage, in speaking of the Eucharist ; and the writings of some late 
in the 'history of the church, savour of the real presence; but 
mingled with much contradiction and absurdity. With these re- 
marks we proceed to examine their authority on this subject, by 
way of contrast with the doctrine of the church of Rome. 1. The 
Fathers differ from, the church of Rdrne in determining what that 
thing is which Christ calls “ my body .” We have seen above, that 
the gloss on Gratian and Bellarmine, (and we might add Salmeron, 
Kellisori, and Vasquez,) explicitly state that the word “ this ” can- 
not refer to the substance of the bread , for they say, bread cannot 


364 


CONTROVERSY. 


be the body of Christ Now the Fathers expressly tell us that bread 
is Christ’s body. Hence it must be in & figure as Protestants be- 
lieve. Iraeneus, in the second century, (Adv. H seres. L. 5. c. 2.) 
says, “ Our Lord confessed the cup which is of the creature to be 
his blood, and the bread which is of the creature he confirmed it to 
be his body.” Clement of Alexandria, second century, writes, 
(Paedag. Lib. 2. c. 2.) “ Our Lord blessed the wine, saying, 
take, drink ; this is my blood, the blood of the grape ; for the holy 
river of gladness (that is, the wine) does alegorically signify the 
word (i. e. the blood of the word) shed for many for the remission of 
sins.” Tertullian, (Lib. 4. Advers. Marcion, c. 40.) thus writes, “the 
bread that he took and distributed to his disciples, he made it his 
body, saying, ‘ this is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body.” 
So likewise Cyprian, Eusebius, Origen, Cyril.of Jerusalem, Jerome, 
Chrysostom, Augustine, &c. and the seventh General Council at 
Constantinople, confirm the above testimonies. Here then we - have 
a decisive proof that the ancient Fathers considered Christ as speak- 
ing in a figure , when he said. “ this is my body,” and of course 
they rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation. 

2. The Fathers, contrary to the doctrine of transubstantiation, 
make the bread and wine to be the Sacrament , sign, type , and image 
of Christ's blood and body. Origen (Com. in Math. 15.) speaking 
of the Eucharist, says, “ this much may suffice concerning the typi- 
cal and symbolical body.” Isodore, speaking of the bread and 
wine, (De. Off. Ecc. 1. i. c. 18.) says, “these two are visible, hut 
being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, they pass into a sacrament of 
his divine body.” Augustine calls the Eucharist (In Psal. 3.) “a 
banquet in which he commended and delivered to his disciples the 
figure of his body and blood.” # The words of the office of Ambrose 
(Lib. 4. de Sac. c. 5.) are very striking. “ Wouldst thou know 
that the Eucharist is consecrated by heavenly words ? Hear then 
what the words are. The Priest says, make this oblation to us al- 
lowable, rational, acceptable, which is the figure of the body and 
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In the present canon of the Mass 
(a confession that transubstantiation is new) the words figure of the 
body , are altered to read, may it be made to us the body , fiat nobis 
corpus. Eusebius (Lib. 8 Demon. Evang.) thus writes, “ Christ deli- 
vered to his disciples the symbols of his divine economy, requiring 
them to make an image of his body.” Ambrose says, “ none can 
ever have been an image of himself /” and Cyril of Alexandria 
says, “ a type is not the truth, hni rather imports the similitude of the 
truth and Gregory Nyssen, “an image would be no longer such, 
if it were altogether the same with that of which it is an image.” 
And yet the church of Rome ventures the following anathema, 
“ whosoever shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the 
Eucharist there are truly, really , and substantially contained th ebody 
and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divi- 
nity, and consequently, Christ entire; but shall affirm that he is pre- 
sent therein only in a sign or figure, or by his power : let him be 
accursed.” 3. The Fathers directly contradict the church of Rome 
in this, that they say Christ’s body is eaten spiritually , whereas the 


365 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

church of Rome says that Christ’s body is eaten, literally arid car- 
nally, Berringer, A. D. 1059, recanted the Protestant doctrine be- 
fore the General Council of Lateran, under this proscribed form, 
“ that the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ, not only in the sign 
and sacrament, but in truth, is handled and broken by the Priest’s 
hands, and ground by the teeth of the faithful.” We have seen 
above how St. Augustine declares that it is a “ crime,” and “ horrid 
thing” to speak of “ eating Christ’s real flesh and therefore he ex- 
plains it spiritually. Origen says, (Horn. 7. in Levit.) “not only in 
the Old Testament is found the killing letter ; there is also in the 
New Testament a letter that kills him who does not spiritually con- 
sider what is said. For if thou follow this according to the letter 
which was said, * unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood,’ this 
letter kills.” Macarius (Homil. 27.) “ They which are partakers 
of the visible bread do spiriturlly eat the flesh of the Lord.” Au- 
gustine (In Psl. 98.) represents our Lord as saying “ understand 
spiritually what \ have spoken. Ye are not to eat this body which 
ye see, nor to drink that blood which they shall shed, who will cru- 
cify me. I have commended a certain. sacrament to you, which*, if 
spiritually understood, will give life to you ; and since it is neces- 
sary this sacrament should be visibly celebrated, yet it must be in- 
visibly understoodby you.” This is the very language of evangelical 
Protestants. What makes this position still more clear, is that the 
Fathers make Christ as really present in baptism, as in the eucha- 
rist. Thus Chrysostom, (Cat. ad. Ilium.) speaking to those who 
were to receive baptism, says, “ you shall be cloJhed with the pur- 
ple garment dyed in the Lord’s blood.” Fulgentius (De. Bapt. 
Aethiop. Cap. Ult.) writes, “ neither need any one at all doubt that 
then, every believer is made partaker of our Lord's body and blood , 
when he is made a member of Christ in baptism.” 

4. The Fathers deny' the substantial presence of Christ’s natural 
body in the Eucharist, arid thus differ wholly from the church of 
Rome. This may be proved from the writings of Ambrose, Augus- 
tine, Cyril, Chrysostom, Gregory, Nazianzen, &c. 

5. The Fathers positively assert that the substance of the bread 
and wine remains after consecration, which is directly the reverse 
of transubstanliation. In Theodoret’s Dialogues 2. it is written, 
“.after sanctification the mystical symbols do not depart from their 
own nature, for they remain still in their former substance and 
figure and form, and may- be seen and touched just as before. But 
they are understood to be that which they are made, and are believed 
arid venerated as being what they are believed to be.” (Dial. 1.) 

“ He (Christ) honoured the visible symbols with the appellation 
of his body, and blood, not altering nature, but to nature adding 
grace." The same may be proved from Peter Martyr, Chrysostom, 
Pope Gleasius, Facundus, Origen, Cyprian, Irenacus, Ambrose, 
Augustine, &c. 

The multiplication of particulars and of proofs would be endless. 
But from the Fathers it may abundantly be gathered, that transub- 
stantiation was not the doctrine of the early church. They contradict 
the church of Rome about the nature and properties of bodies ; they 


365 


CONTROVERSY. 


deny that “ accidents” or properties can exist without a subject, that 
is, the appearance of bread, without its substance ; they deny that 
our senses can deceive us in the Eucharist ; they deny that any but 
the faithful can eat “ Christ’s body the absurd use of the word 
species in your church was unknown to them ; they professed no 
miracle in the Eucharist such as you do, but make it a spiritual mys- 
tery ; they gave the cup to the people, as well as the bread; they 
never elevated the Eucharist that it might be adored ; they took no 
care to reserve what remained of the consecrated elements after ad- 
ministration, and they allowed the people to make what use they 
pleased of them ; and they even used to send the elements from one 
Bishop to another as a token of peace ; strange use, impious custom, 
if indeed it was the real body of Christ ! In all these things they 
differed wholly from the church of Rome ; and by these differences 
showed that they believed not the doctrine of transubstantiation. I 
hope hereafter, to have the opportunity of presenting the argument 
from the Fatheis to the community at full length, either in a public 
discussion with you, or if you decline this, in a form which will give 
room for ample citation of authorities. In the. mean time let me 
say, in reference to the work of Thomas Moore (from whom you 
seem chiefly to draw your testimonies,) that there is not a more 
garbled, dishonest and superficial view of the writings of the Fathers, 
in any language. 

III. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is not only against the 
Scripture and the Fathers, but it is contrary to reason , and contra- 
dicts all our senses. Bellarmine himself acknowledges, ' (Book 2. 
chap. 12. De Eucharist) “we might be accounted fools .truly, if 
without the word of God, we believed the true flesh of Christ to 
be eaten with the mouths of our bodies.” But we have shown con- 
clusively that it is believed without the authority of God’s word. 
Hence on his principles it is an absurdity. When you attempt to put 
this doctrine by the side of the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, 
&c. you compare the most opposite and dissimilar things. There 
is not a mystery, or a doctrine of Christianity .that is contrary to 
reason. In saying therefore, “ when you study mathematics, you 
reason , but in revelation you believe ,” you can mean, I suppose, 
nothing more than Bellarmine does, (Lib. 1. cap. 7. De Just.) “that 
faith is better defined by ignorance than knowledge .” In revela- 
tion, as in mathematics, we reason upon facts , communicated in 
the one case through God’s word , in the other through his works. 
When his word reveals facts which connect themselves with his 
works, they do not contradict each other.- It is not a contradiction 
to say that Jesus Christ was a perfect man and yet God, though the 
revelation is above our reason. But it is a contradiction to say 
that a piece of bread can become a perfect man, “ bones, sinews, body 
and soul that the man Christ Jesus, who is in Heaven, should at 
the same time be bodily in the bread, nay, in ten thousand pieces of 
bread, in ten thousand places at the same. time; that the bread should 
be turned into the substance of Christ, and yet nothing of the bread 
become any of Christ, either as to matter, form or properties-; that 
the bread should yet be so changed into Christ’s substance as to 


367 


IS THE PROTESTANT. RELIGION, &c. 

cease to be bread, and still retain the appearances of bread, so that 
there should be a long, broad, thick, white, heavy, moist, active, pas- 
sive nothing ; that there should be length and nothing long, breadth 
and nothing broad, thickness and nothing thick, whiteness and nothing 
white, weight and nothing heavy, &c. &c. ; that this strange some- 
thing nothing, seeming bread and not bread, the body of Christ yet 
seeming bread, should be eaten and pass into our blood, and should 
be a body, and yet not diminished,, and be living in heaven entire 
and unbroken, while all this is going.on upon earth, is, I say, an infi- 
nite absurdity. Yet this is a part of the doctrine of Transubstantia- 
tion. Again, the proof of miracles rests on the testimony of the 
senses. Hence when Christ rose from the dead, he said to unbe- 
lieving Thomas, “ handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and 
bones as ye see me have.” All the miracles of the Bible appeal to 
the senses of men ; that is not a miracle which the senses cannot 
discern; and that it is not a true miracle which contradicts the senses. 
Hume’s argument in favour of infidelity proceeds upon the denial of 
the testimony of the senses ; and if Transubstantiation be true, he 
cannot be confuted. Now the senses say that the bread is still bread, 
and the wine, still wine, after all your consecration ; therefore there 
is no miracle, or the senses would discern it ; it is not the flesh of 
Christ for the senses all say it is bread. When, therefore, you 
say I have “ forgotten my philosophy,” you discover that the phi- 
losophy of the Bible, and of Newton and of Bacon, and of common 
sense, all are with me. Your church seemed to feel this difficulty 
in its canons and its catechism. Thus the Catechism says, “ how- 
ever repugnant it may appear to the dictate of the senses no sub- 
stance of the elements remains in the sacraments .” In fact, in the 
whole account of the Eucharist, there are almost as many absurdi- 
ties as words. When you refer to the Holy Ghost appearing at the 
baptism of Christ in the form of a dove, you not only forget your 
philosophy, but pervert your Bible. The Holy Ghost never had a 
human body: He appeared in the form of a dove ; and we do not 
deny that God may manifest himself in a visible form. But the cases 
are not parallel. If it had been said, that what appeared to be a dove, 
was a man, and yet had all the external appearances of a dove, and 
that this same man , which appeared a dove to John at Jordan, was 
at the same time in Heaven on the Throne a real man, then you 
might have claimed it for an illustration. 

It is a remarkable fact that the ancient heathen, Jews, and 
Infidels, such as Celsus, and Porphyry, Lucian, Julian and 
Trypho, who used all their wit and cunning to oppose the doc- 
trine and worship of Christians, and who attacked by name 
the doctrines of the Trinity, the Sonship of Christ, his Incar- 
nation, Crucifixion, and our Resurrection, as absurdities , never 
once noticed the doctrine of the real presence, which surely is . 
the mystery of mysteries. From this it is evident that the doc- 
trine was not then known. This is the more clear from the 
fact that Julian was once initiated into the Christian Church, and 
therefore, knew all their doctrines and mysteries ; yet he at- 
tacked all the rest and never named this. But on the other 


368 


CONTROVERSY. 


hand, just about the time at which Transubstantiation was adopt* 
ed , A. D. 1215, Jews and Mahommedans, and others, with great 
fulness. and frequency, attacked this doctrine. Averroes, a Ma- 
lrommedari, whom we quoted in a former letter, -saying, “ that 
Christians first made their God, then ate him,” lived in the same 
age with Innocent III. and the Lateran Council, which intro- 
duced this doctrine, sat under Innocent. Now we object not 
to the doctrine because Mahommedans, Jews, See. opposed i. 
but because they never opposed it before , though they opposed 
whatever they thought absurd before that age ; and have opposed 
this doctrine ever since that age ; therefore, we infer that in 
that age it was adopted. There is also this singular fact, that 
the taking away of the cup from the people immediately followed 
the adoption of Transubstantiation. As the wine (by this doc- 
trine) is Christ's real blood,, so the use of the cup exposed it to 
be spilt ; and besides as the blood is said to be in the body , so 
the cup became useless. He that runs may read and understand 
this. 

IV. We notice briefly the origin of this doctrine. The last 
remark goes far to prove its recent date. Scotus, a Roman Ca- 
tholic writer, (as Bellarmine owns) states “that it was hot an 
article of faith before the Lateran. Council, A. D. 121 5.” It is 
false when you charge me with saying that this doctrine was 
not held before 1215 ; but I still assert that it was never an article 
of faith before. In proof of this I refer not only to Scotus, but to 
Tonstal, to Durand, Erasmus, and Alfonsus a Castro. Erasmus 
says, (De Haeres, B. 8.) “that it was late before the church de- 
Jined Transubstantiation, which was unknown to the ancients , 
both name and thing.” And now I challenge you to produce 
any proof that it was enacted an article of faith before 1215. 
It was agitated for some time before ; it was matter of discus- 
sion in the church till the year 1059, when Berringer recanted 
the truth on this subject ; in 1079 his recantation was amended ; 
and finally, after a world of strife, through several ages, the doc- 
trine was promoted into an article of faith in 1215. 

V. Your objections are so trivial and puerile, that they scarcely 
deserve notice. You say, “ if the body of Christ was not in 
the Sacrament how could men discern it there ?” I answer, can 
you discern the body after Transubstantiation ? Is not the very 
word “ species ” used in your Church to cover the absurdity of 
saying Christ’s flesh is there, though we discern only bread? 
Truly, if the evidence of Christianity had rested on such mira- 
cle as no man can see, we should all have been without a religion! 
I'Ve discern Christ spiritually ; you worship the bread and super- 
induce idolatry upon the Eucharist. 

You say: “to creatures deputed by God some power was 
given, but to Christ all power, both in heaven and in earth, and, it 
was in the Eucharist alone that this all power was exercised.” 
Strange indeed ! Christ “ exercised this all power” in the only 
way in which, from the nature of the case, nobody could see, 
feel, or know that it was exercised ! Other miracles, you say, 
creatures could work by delegation ; other miracles, as raising 


369 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

the dead, passing the Red Sea, 8c c. Etc., spoke for themselves, 
and were seen as soon as done. But this miracle, which u all ” 
Christ’s power and his “ alone ” could operate, is dumb and in- 
visible ; none ever discerned it, or ever can and in order to 
know it, you must tell us it has been done, and we must dis- 
believe our senses in order to believe you. Besides, are not all 
miracles, by the power, and to the glory of Christ ? And does 
not this pretended miracle degrade his humanity, and Deify 
the operating Priest ? And does it not destroy all miracles to 
believe this miracle ? If this be true all others may be false, 
for this falsifies all those senses on which the truth of other mira- 
cles rest. You say Christ and his Apostles did not warn Chris- 
tians of the. error of Transubstantiation, though they spoke of 
other errors that were to arise ; and you more than intimate that 
Christ was “ guilty of duplicity,” if Transubstantiation be false. 
Such profanity needs no comment. But I ask, did Christ and 
his Apostles warn Christians of the Protestant error of denying 
the real presence? Did he not warn them of “seducing 
spirits of “ their lying wonders of their “changing the 
truth of God into a lie;” “exalting themselves above God;” 
“forbidding to marry,” 8cc. See.? These prophetic warnings 
are so direct and clear, that they are written in as sun-beams on 
the Vatican at Rome. 

VI. As the real presence of Christ depends upon the intention 
of the Priest who consecrates; (See the Canon already quoted) 
and as Bellarmine owns, (Book 3. Chap. 8 Justn.) “no man can 
be certain, with the certainty of faith that he receives a true 
Sacrament ; because it depends on the minister’s intention to 
consecrate it; and none can see another’s intention ;” it follows 
irresistibly that to worship the consecrated wafer exposes 
every member of your Church to continual and gross idolatry. 
For how cari you be certain ? And if you are not certain, how 
dare you worship it ? For if it be not truly consecrated, you 
encourage, and you practise gross idolatry. 

VII. It would be quite amusing, if it did not call up, along 
with that feeling, others more serious, to find you claiming the 
ancient. Liturgies , as teaching Transubstantiation. I here ven- 
ture to. assert that there is not one word of truth in all you have 
said on that subject ; and I am prepared to prove what I say 
whenever you please. So far is what you say from being true, 
that the .Mass, decretals, and glosses of the Church of Rome do 
much to overthrow Transubstantiation, as I will show in my next 
letter, if you deny it; and so confessed is this, that the Mass 
has been altered so as to change the ancient Liturgy, (which was 
against Transubstantiation) to make it speak for it. There is 
another fact on this subject, which speaks volumes in behalf 
of the Protestant doctrine. It is that the ancient Syrian Chris- 
tians, called St. Thomas’s Christians, because evangelized by the 
Apostle Thomas, and who have come down with the Bible in 
their hands from the days of the Apostles, reject Transubstantia- 
tion, as well as “ the Apochryphal books,” which your church has 
foisted into the canon. For these, and other Protestant doc- 

3 A 


370 


CONTROVERSY. 


trines, their Breviary, Book of Homilies, See. were condemned 
by a Roman Catholic Synod held in Goa, India, A. D. 1599. 
But more of this hereafter. May I not then retort the question, 

what have you now to say for yourself ?” 

Thus we see that on every point Transubstantiation is a false, 
shocking, novel doctrine. With Transubstantiation falls the 
sacrifice of the Mass. Upon Transubstantiation, every thing 
important and decisive in the church of Rome may be said in a 
degree to hang. It is on. account of its importance, and dread- 
ful evils that I have entered so largely into the discussion of it. 
Having not room, to take up your remarks in the last letter on 
the sacrifice of the mass and communion in one kind, I for the 
present refer our readers to my exposure of them in letters No. 
22 and 24. 

And now the doctrine of truth which remains on the sub- 
ject of the Eucharist, is the simple and sublime institution 
founded by Jesus Christ, practised by the earliest Christians, 
taught by the Fathers for the first six hundred years, and now 
held and practised by the great body of Protestants in Europe 
and America, which makes the elements of bread and wine to be 
symbols and figures of the body and blood of Christ ; which 
gives the bread and the" wine to all who commune ; which makes 
saving faith the qualification to partake profitably, and to discern 
the spiritual presence of Christ in his sacrament ; and which 
is the only rational and consistent construction that can be put 
upon the words of institution. Luther’s doctrine called “ con- 
substantiation,” retains a remnant of his Papal errors, as his 
great mind was in transition from the absurdities of the real pre- 
sence towards the simple and beautiful institution of Jesus Christ. 
But whatever his doctrine was, it is radically different from 
yours, whose enormous evils his eyes were opened to behold. 

You lug in “ the review” of your review of “ Bishop Onder- 
donk’s charge on the Rule of Faith,” as if you had nothing to 
do beside. When I called you out on tradition you declined to 
appear. fNow you would divert me from unveiling to an as- 
tonished nation, the true history and real doctrines of the Papa- 
cy. But no, no ! Our respected Episcopal brethren do not need 
my humble help. I suppose you never read Tillotson nor Bar- 
row, nor Usher (“ whose authority” I know your church has 
never loved, nor met) nor Stillingfleet, nor Sherlock, nor Patrick, 
nor Wake, whom Bossuet could not forget. Go read them and 
be humble ! 

The personal vanity displayed in your notice of this review 
makes me ashamed of you. And then to repeat the wretched 
tale of “a bookseller (as you have been told) having been forbid- 
den to keep it for sale !” Have you forgotten the Index Expur- 
gatorius at Rome, for prunihg books, and prohibiting their 
perusal and sale, yes, even of the Bible? May I ask who this 
bookseller is? May I call for the name of your informant? Sure- 
ly I have more right to do so, than you had to demand the Rev. 
Mr. Burtt’s ? Who then are these whose scandals you retail 
and publish against the Episcopal community ? 


371 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

In my next letter, if my life is continued, I will classify and 
extend my answers to your stereotype stale questions. They 
have already been replied to. But you shall not complain of my 
silence. In the mean time I ask an answer to the following en- 
quiries, viz : 

1. Did Pope Liberius subscribe the Arian creed, yes or no ? 

2. Did the councils of Sermium and Ariminum adopt Arian 
creeds ? 

3. Does the validity of ordinations, administration of the sa- 
craments, See. depend on the intention of Popes, Bishops, and 
Priests ? 

4. Was there ever a time when there was a schism in the Pope- 
dom, when several persons claimed to be popes at once, and it 
was not certainly known who was the true pope; and were there 
ever any false popes ? 

5. Do you approve the decrees of councils, rules of the Index, 
and bulls of popes against the freedom of the press ? Is there 
not now a committee at Rome who may, and do, prohibit to all 
the church the printing, sale, and reading of any books they 
please ? If so, do you approve of this ? 

6. Why is money paid for indulgences, masses for the dead, 
and in aid of souls in Purgatory ? 

7. Was it right to abolish the order of the Jesuits ? Was it 
right to restore it ? The same two questions also touching the 
Inquisition P 

8. If the Jewish church was infallible why do you reject all 

her traditions ? These questions bear directly on the contro- 
versy. An explicit answer to them will gratify the community, 
many of whom are surprised that you evade so many subjects 
brought before you ; and it will also much oblige your obe- 
dient servant, John Breckinridge. 


CONTROVERSY. No. XXXI. 

S 

IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF CHRIST ? 

Philadelphia , September 2d, 1833. 
To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 

Rev. Sir, — Mr. Breckinridge says that “ the Protestant is the reli- 
gion of Christ .” 

If so, I call upon him 1st. To tell me what the Protestant religion isp 

2. I call upon him to say what society of Christians ever taught 
this pretended “ religion of Christ ,” previous to the Refor- 
mation P 

3. / call upon him to say, whether Christ revealed all the doc- 
trines of the Protestant religion, beginning with the best 
image of his church, Episcopalianism , and terminating with 
the most consistent of Protestant sects, the Unitarians P — 
and if not, how many denominations, out of the whole, belong 
to the true Protestant religion, the religion of Christ P 

4. I call upon him to show whether the Reformers received any 
new ministerial authority, after the withdrawal of that which 
they had received from the church P 

5. I call upon him, in case no such new authority was received, 
to show that the Protestant clergy, so called, have any divine 
right to exercise the Christian ministry, more than other 
educated laymen P 

In my last letter I promised to “ expose you,” in case you would 
mention “ the page” of any Catholic historian who states what 
you had asserted, respecting the immorality of the Popes and clergy 
of Rome. You have complied with your part of the condition, and 
now, it is for me to fulfd mine. You give two extracts ; and refer 
me to the pages where they are to be found. The one is from 
“ Thuanus, Book 37. p. 776,” The history of Thuanus has been 
condemned at Rome by two public decrees ; the one of November 
9, 1609 ; the other of May 10, 1757 ; from which fact, the reader 
may see with how little propriety he deserves to be called a “Roman 
Catholic historian.” He was, says a modern author, Paquot, “ an 
audacious writer ; the implacable enemy of the Jesuits ; the calum- 
niator of the Guises : the copyist, flatterer, friend of the Protestants; 
and was far from being even just (parum oequus) to the Holy See, 
the Council of Trent, or any thing Catholic.” But hostile as he teas, 

I am not certain that the extract given in your letter is contained in 
his work ; which is not in my possession If it is to be found in 
the city, I shall examine it. Among Catholics, however, he is any 
thing but an accredited historian. 

You mention as another Catholic historian, Dupin. We disown 
him ; and for the following reason. His secret papers were exam- 
ined on the 10th of February, 1719, at the Palais Royal, and it was 
found, as Lafitau testifies, that in his correspondence with Archbishop 
Wake, of Canterbury, on the subject of a re-union between the En- 
glish and Catholic churches, he was ready to give up the following 
points. 1. Auriacular Confession. 2. Transubstantiation. 3. Re- 
ligious Vows. 4. The fast of Lent and abstinence. 5. The supre- 
macy of the Pope. 6. The Celibacy of the Clergy ; having proba- 
372 


373 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

bly anticipated you in discovering that a Bishop “ must be” the 
husband of one wife. * But it is clear, that a man who could so far 
betray the Catholic Religion , is not entitled to the credit or appella- 
tion of a Catholic historian. From him, however, you give no ex- 
tract. 

But Baronius is a Catholic historian. You refer to “ the page” 
of his Annals for A. D. 908. From this you give an extract : I have 
consulted the text, and find : 1st. That you suppress that part of 
the passage, which, so far from criminating the legitimate Popes, 
absolutely vindicates them from your charge. 2d. That you abso- 
lutely falsify Baronius, (if indeed you ever saw the original,) by 
making him say the very contrary of what he has said. To put the 
matter to rest, I shall mark the pages, and leave two copies of Ba- 
ronius, one in Latin, and the other in Italian, at the Athenaeum on 
Thursday morning, together with a copy of your letter, for the cu- 
rious to compare the one with the other. The public will then see 
which of us is to be “ exposed.” If the American people pride 
themselves on their love of truth, these little matters will open their 
eyes to the impositions that have been practiced upon them and their 
fathers. They will see to what an extent their credulity has been 
abused, on the subject of the Catholic religion. They will see, 
moreover, that you evade the only question for which you had 
pledged yourself : viz. whether “ the Protestant Religion be the Re- 
ligion of Christ ?” I furnished ample arguments founded on the au- 
thority of the Reformers themselves to prove the contrary. This 
was in Letter, No. XXIII. Will they ever be answered ? Is not the 
author of your last able to refute them ? ^ If not ; but hold : here is 
something like a renewal of the promise. 

“ In my next letter, if my life be continued, I will classify and ex- 
tend my answers to your past, stale questions.” Here, then, is a 
promise at last, and I hope the “ stale” questions will be satisfacto- 
rily disposed of. If you had answered them sooner, they would not 
be “ stale.” 

In the first column of your last letter you return to your “ Magda- 
len Report,” but with less of indecent language than had been em- 
ployed on a former occasion. You do me great wrong, however, 
when you insinuate that I wished to insult you. I merely stated, 
with a view to the improvement of your style, that you had given 
offence to modesty and delicate sentiment, by the elaborate grossness 
of your descriptions. For this, you should not be displeased with 
me. I merely held up the mirror of public taste, and instead of at- 
tempting to “break the looking glass,” you should have endeavoured 
to correct the deformities (if any) that were reflected by it, until at 
length, you might look upon the image of your pen without feeling 
yourself “insulted.” 

It is true that our own writers have lamented, and do lament the 
existence of immoralities. But this is common to all denominations. 
And if it be an argument against the truth of a religion, the deist may 
quote the example of Judas, and use it against the doctrines of 
Christ. There are, and have been, immoral men of every religion, 
and yet I know of no religion that does not profess to condemn im* 


374 


CONTROVERSY. 


morality. But the man \Vho practises the duties of the Catholic re- 
ligion is found to be an example of every virtue that can adorn 
humanity. How then can that religion be made accountable for trans- 
gressions that are committed in contempt of her authority and in 
violation of her precepts ? Is Christianity to be held responsible for 
the crimes of men, calling themselves Christians ? Certainly not. 
So neither is the church accountable for the crimes of individuals. 
This is manifest to every mind endowed with common sense. When, 
therefore, you speak of scandalous men in the church, you speak of 
men who are self-condemned by the very doctrines which they pro- 
fess. They are Protestants in morals , by despising and trampling 
upon the moral precepts of their religion. But pray do Presbyteri- 
ans stand so immaculate in public estimation, that you are warranted 
in wielding the weapons of reproach with so large an assumption of 
sectarian righteousness? Are there no instances of depravity among 
your people, your pastors, and ruling elders ? Are not “ publicans 
and sinners” sometimes found under the Pharisee’s mantle? Are 
there no “ convictions' ’ among you, except those of the spirit ? If 
« not, you have a right to “ cast the first stone.” I merely suggest 
these inquiries to your recollection, leaving it to some pen more 
reckless than mine to go into specific criminations. Materials are 
not wanting, and the public are aware of it. 

Now certainly it is not the celibacy of the Protestant clergy that 
gives occasion to these scandals. Their ministers may be, or as you 
have discovered “must be” the husband of one wife ; and even this 
does not always protect them from the tongue and the type of scan- 
dal. How is this ? ;; 

Again : — if the details of impudicity be a favourite theme, why did 
you pass over those of “Brother McDowell’s Journal,” and other 
Protestant documents by which it appears that in the city of New 
York no less than “ ten thousand” females have forgotten to be vir- 
tuous ? And yet New York is a city, in which Protestant ministers 
are superabundantly numerous, basking in the sunshine of popularity 
and emolument. This state of morals is eeitainly not owing to the 
celibacy of the clergy. Is it to be ascribed to the Protestantism of 
New York ? The analogy of your reasoning would lead to that in- 
ference. 

As to the charge that the Catholic church forbids marriage, it is 
untrue. She teaches in the very language of St. Paul, that marriage 
is honourable in all. She holds, however, that there is a holier 
state, which is free for those who, by the divine grace, are called to 
embrace it. The law of her priesthood enjoins celibacy and chastity, 
but no one is compelled to enter into the ministry of her sanctuary. 
If they wish to marry, they do well. She does not choose them for 
her clergy. If they wish not to marry, they do better, freeing them- 
selves from solicitude “about the things of this world, how they may 
please their wives.” But in neither case is there any compulsion. 
At some future time I may enlarge upon the subject, but at present I 
merely state the fact to show that you either did not know or did 
not choose to represent fairly, the doctrine of the church. It is cer- 
tain that the marriage of Luther and his associates was a shooking 


375 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

scandal even to their followers. And Dr. Miller goes so far as to 
recommend celibacy among the Protestant clergy, but evidently with 
the conviction on his mind, that his advice will not be followed. He 
thinks for example that neither Wesley nor Whitefield should have 
engaged in matrimony. But the fact is that Protestant clergymen 
seem to feel it as an inward reproach, that they can furnish no such 
examples of self-denial, as those which are witnessed in the Catholic 
priesthood. They feel, that in the trying duties of the ministry, they 
dare not expose their lives, as the Catholic clergy do. When pesti- 
lence is in the city, they fly to the country, and when the voice of 
reproach from their own people pursues them, they take refuge be- 
hind their wives and children “ according to law.” If the example 
of the Catholic Priests is pointed at, to shame them by the compari- 
son, it only fills them with additional hatred towards clerical celibacy, 
“ A Bishop” must be “ the husband of one wife,” and to say the 
contrary is, you tell us, “ fighting against God.” 

Now, in the Catholic church, the vow of celibacy and chastity, 
voluntarily assumed, is binding, and constitutes a moral incapacity 
on the part of those who have taken it, to enter into matrimonial en- 
gagements. Such is the case which you select from Bellarmine, in 
which he contends, as you cannot but know, that the marriage is 
essentially null and void. The Catholic religion teaches that the 
vows of the Priest in his ordination, which he makes by his own 
free will and choice, are an absolute impediment to any marriage 
vow, subsequently made. To illustrate the case, then, cited from 
Bellarmine, I would ask you whether an act of conjugal infidelity, in 
a married person, is as great a sin as polygamy ? In other words, 
whether the Landgrave of Hesse was more guilty in his libertinism, 
being the husband of only one wife, than he was afterwards, when 
for the peace of his conscience, and “ by virtue of an indulgence” 
from the Reformers, he became the husband of two P Whilst 
speaking on this subject I may as well direct your attention to a 
permanent “ indulgence,” (I mean according to your definition, “ li- 
cense to commit sin,”) which I find recorded in your Confession of 
Faith, in favour of polygamy. In cases of adultery, “ or such wil- 
ful desertion as can in no way be remedied by the church or civil 
magistrate,” the injured party may obtain a divorce, and with the 
approbation of the church enter into a new contract of marriage ! | 
(See chap. xxiv. p. 110.) 

If the church had gone a little farther, and to this “ wilful deser* 
tion,” added “ incompatability of disposition,” as another cause for 
dissolving marriage, it would have anticipated the morality of the 
French Revolution, and even of Miss Wright. 

Touching the bigotry and intolerance of the Presbyterian creed, I 
am glad to see that they are .becoming antiquated, if we may credit 
your magnificent professions of liberality. But with regret I add, 
that in reference to Catholics, you make an assertion, which, in jus- 
tice to his Holiness and myself, I must say it is not true. . “ Once 
every year,” you tell us, “ the Pope at Rome, publicly, and in full 
form, excommunicates all Protestants ; (not true) and absolution is 
refused to all those who harbour these heretics, who read their books, 


376 


CONTROVERSY. 


&c. (not true) and all ecclesiastical persons, Mr. Hughes included, 
are required to publish the Bull that the faithful may know its con- 
tents,” (not a word of truth in it.) How can you write such tales ! 
But it is true that once every year the Pope at Rome, and all the 
clergy throughout the world, pray to Almighty God for the conver- 
sion of all those who are under the delusion of heresy, as well as 
Jews and Pagans, that they may be gathered from their wanderings, 
into the unity of faith and into the one sheepfold of Jesus Christ. 
This is probably what you have mistaken for excommunication. 

The Catholic belief is, that out of the true church there is no sal- 
vation. But besides those who profess the true religion, it considers 
as implicit members of the church, those who, invincibly ignorant 
of the truth , yet have so upright and sincere a heart towards God, 
that they would embrace the truth if they knew it. It holds, that 
those who sin without the law (except by their own fault) shall not 
be judged by the law. Has Presbyterianism so much charity ? Let 
us see. 

The church, says the Confession of Faith, “ consists of all those 
throughout the world , who profess the true religion .” This is the 
house of God, “ out of which there is no ordinary possibility of sal- 
vation.” Now let us see how large a portion of the human race 
your doctrine excludes from this “ house of God,” and to how small 
a number it reduces the elect. 1st. All the Jews since Christ, and 
all the Pagans since and before. 2. All Mohammedans , Greeks , 
schismatics, heretics of the east, and Catholics, whom it expressly 
denounces as “ Idolators.” Here then all are lost but Protestants. 
But 3d, how will they fare ? The Synod of Dort, which you hold, 
condemned Arrninianism as heresy. Of course those who hold Ar- 
minian doctrines do not * profess the true religion,’ and are shut out, 
consequently, from the “ house of God.” Now it is known to all 
men that 4th, most Of the Episcopalians, and 5th, most of the Me- 
thodists are on the side of Arrninianism, consequently they are ex- 
cluded. 6. Lutherans are, for the error of consubstantiation. 7th, 
the Drs. Brownlee and Cox of New York, have proved to the satis- 
faction of all the Bishops in the General Assembly, that the Quakers 
are not even Christians , consequently they are done for. As for 
8th, Unitarians, 9th, Universalists, 10th, Swedenborgians, and others; 
it would be out of the question to cherish even a hope for them. 
This, Rev. Sir, is the charity of the Presbyterian doctrine. Let any 
man who has common sense see, whether these consequences do not 
flow from the definition of “ the church,” “ out of which there is no 
ordinary possibility of salvation,” as laid down in your Confession 
of Faith, “amended” in 1821. Which is the more exclusive? — 
Which, the more charitable towards involuntary and invincible error? 
Let those who have eyes and understanding decide. 

Your objections to the dogma of the Eucharist, are but the 
repetition of those which have been urged a thousand times be- 
fore, and a thousand times refuted. You pass over most of the 
arguments adduced in my Letter No. 27, to which I beg leave to 
refer the reader, that I may avoid the necessity of repeating what 
has already been said You admit that Berringer was condemned 


377 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


as an heretic for denying the doctrine of Transubstantiation in 
1059, and. yet by a contradiction which I shall not pretend to ex- 
plain, you assert that Transubstantiation was not a doctrine of 
the church until “ 1215.” That is, a man is condemned by the 
whole church for denying a doctrine which did not exist! ! Now 
this fact alone would prove its existence, unless, indeed, you can 
persuade men into the belief of a paradox. Here, then, you fur- 
nish all requisite testimony against yourself. The question is 
not of the word Transubstantiation, as used by the Council of 
Lateran, but of the doctrine which it expresses. Did that doc- 
trine exist before the Council P I say it did, you say it did, since 
you admit that Berringer was condemned in 1059 for denying it. 
Here then we are agreed. For the rest, your quibble is like that 
of the Socinians who contend that the divinity of Jesus Christ 
was not believed in the primitive church, because the words 
“ Consubstantial with the Father” were first used by the Council 
of Nice, not for the purpose, as you know, of creating a new 
doctrine ; but on the contrary, for the express purpose of de- 
fending a doctrine which had always been believed. 

But it is not in this alone that we can trace the exact similarity 
of your reasoning, to that of the Socinian. It pervades the 
whole of your objections. To illustrate this allow me to state 
some of your difficulties in juxta-position with those of the Uni- 
tarian argument as sustained by Professor Norton in his “ State- 
ment of Reasons” against the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus 
Christ. In his preface, he apologises for writing against a doc- 
trine which he regards as exploded by all sensible men, for its 
absurdity. He means the Trinity. To prove this he does every 
thing that you do, to show that Transubstantiation should be ex- 
ploded by sensible men. 

He quotes the Scriptures as abundantly and as figuratively as 
you do. He cites passages from the Fathers as confidently as you 
do. He contends that the Trinity is as great an absurdity as 
Transubstantiation, and the weapons which you wield against 
the one, he wields against the other. 

The arguments in both cases are neither more nor less than 
deistical. Mr. Breckinridge applies reason to the doctrine of 
Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist — Mr. Norton to the doc- 
trine of three persons in one God. Yet God, says the Bible, out 
of stones could raise up children unto Abraham. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Mr. Morton. 

“ It is not a contradiction to say that “ The doctrine that Jesus Christ is 
Jesus Christ was a perfect man, and yet both God and man, is a contradiction 
God, though the Revelation is above in terms.” (Title of a chapter.) 
our reason.” 


Mr. Breckinridge. 

The doctrine of Christ’s real pre- 
sence in the Eucharist proved to be 
false from Scripture. 

Mr. Breckinridge. 

“ The doctrine of Transubstantiation 
is not only against the Scriptures and 
the Fathers, but it is contrary to reason , 
and contradicts all our senses.” 


Mr. Morton. 

“ The proposition that Christ is God, 
proved to be false from Scripture.” 
Title of Sect. III. 

Unitarian. 

The Deity of Jesus is not only con- 
trary to Scripture, but it is contrary to 
reason, and contradicts all our senses. 
We see, hear, feel, smell, and (if possi- 


378 


CONTROVERSY. 


ble) taste— a max, and yet you, Mr. 
Breckinridge, contrary to Scripture and 
reason, and all otir senses, require us 
to believe that he is God ! 

Mr. Breckinridge. Unitarian. 

“ Thus we see that Transubstantia- Thus we see that the divinity of Christ 

tion is a false, shocking, novel doctrine.” is a false, shocking, and novel doctrine. 

“ Will any one at the present day shock 
our feelings and understanding to the 
uttermost, by telling us that Almighty 
God was incarnate in an infant , and 
wrapped in swaddling clothes?” Nor- 
ton, p. 31. To show how “ shocking ” 
this doctrine is, he quotes Dr. Watts. 

“ This infant is the mighty God, 
Come to be suckled and adored .” 

Now, Rev’d Sir, put your invention to the torture, and see 
whether a single argument can be raised against the pretended 
unreasonableness of Transubstantiation, that will not hold against 
the Incarnation. The one is as contrary to reason as the other. 
Did I not then, rightly define Protestantism “as the middle 
ground between ancient Christianity and modern Deism, combin- 
ing certain elements of both, and unable to defend itself against 
either ?” Let reason be the rule, and tell me which is easier to 
be believed ; that God was an infant , “ suckled and adored,” or 
that the body and blood of Christ are, by the Divine Omnipo- 
tence, truly contained under the appearance of bread and wine? 
You believe that “Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipre- 
sence, were wrapt in swaddling-clothes, and abased to the home- 
ly usages of a stable and a manger /” “ that the artificer of the 
whole universe turned carpenter (I quote from an orthodox Pro- 
testant sermon,) and exercised an inglorious trade in a little cell!” 
“That the eternal God could be subject to the meannesses of 
hunger and thirst, and be afflicted in all his appetites.” “ That 
the Creator , Governor , and Judge of the world, was abused in all 
his concerns and relations ; scourged , spit upon , mocked , and at 
last crucified /” All this you believe, if you believe the divinity 
of Jesus Christ ; and yet you reject Transubstantiation because 
your reason forsooth, cannot comprehend it. Can it comprehend 
the mysteries just stated ? 

Now for your objections under their respective heads. 

1. You begin by stating that “Evangelical Protestants all al- 
low, as their standards clearly evince, that Christ is spiritually 
present, and the truth of his words recorded above (this is my 
body, this is my blood,) they undoubtedly believe.” Let me then 
take you at your words, “Christ, you say, is spiritually present.” 
By this I understand that the spirit, soul, or divinity of Christ is 
present. If it does not mean this, it means nothing. This pre- 
sence of Christ, as to the fact , is roundly stated ; but as to the 
manner , it is qualified by the word ‘spiritually.’ Now this state- 
ment goes far towards the Catholic doctrine. For Christ is both 
God and man ; and if he is present at all , it follows that he is 
corporally as well as ‘ spiritually’ present. Will you separate the 
soul of Christ from the body of Christ, and say that he is present 


l 


379 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

* spiritually/ and absent corporally? This presence of Christ is 
connected with the locality of Lord’s supper ; of course it is 
a specific presence; and we are told that “Christ is present 
‘spiritually that is, all but his body?* Your Confession, page 
127, tells us that, at the reception of the bread and wine, this ab- 
sent body and blood, are “ spiritually present to the faith of be- 
lievers in that ordinance as the elements themselves are, to their out- 
ward senses.** A body absent — present ! Christ the man-God 
“ really present,” without his body ! His body and blood present 
spiritually ; but not corporally ! Do you understand it, Rev’d 
Sir? I do not. 

If it mean that indefinite presence, which was promised to 
“ two or three gathered together in his name,” then we can com- 
prehend it. But that Christ should be really present in a special 
manner , as you assert, and your standards teach of the Lord’s 
supper, and yet be present, whole Christ , without a body, is 
above comprehension. You, however, make the statement, and 
from you we must wait for the explanation. The real presence 
as revealed by Christ was indeed a “hard saying,” which the 
Jews sought to escape by “ walking no more with him,” and the 
Protestants endeavour to evade by an explanation which spoils a 
mystery , and substitutes a paradox. 

The literal sense is hard to flesh and blood ; 

But nonsense never could be understood. 

Now the argument or objections which you make against the mys- 
tery of the Eucharist under the first head, are from your interpreta- 
tion of Scripture. Their amount is this : the Scriptures often speak 
figuratively, therefore the words of Christ, both in the 6th chapter 
of St. John, and in the institution of the Eucharist, are to be under- 
stood figuratively. Here again is the reasoning of the Unitarian 
whenever you quote the passages that establish the divinity of Christ. 
They are, he says, to be understood figuratively. But there is one 
brief reply. When Christ said, “ I am the door,” “ I am the vine,” 
&c. those who heard him understood him to speak figuratively. But 
when he said “ I am the living bread which came down from hea- 
ven,” “ The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the 
world,” “ unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his 
blood, you cannot have life in you,” &c. his hearers understood him 
to speak literally, and if that was an error, .as you say, his language 
gave rise to it, and his silence, when they objected that it was “ a 
hard saying,” confirmed them in it. Therefore his language was 
not figurative. Figurative language would not have offended them. 
He reproached them for their incredulity, he suffered them to go 
away ; therefore they understood him literally. , And it is because 
Protestants do not believe, that they also go back and walk no more 
with Jesus, unless he will accommodate them with a figurative ex- 
planation, which he refused to his own disciples. 

But in the institution, he took bread and literally fulfilled what he 
had promised. He blessed and broke and gave to them ; saying, 
take ye and eat, this is my body, which is given for you.... This is 
my blood which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.” 


380 


CONTROVERSY. 


It was not the figure of his body that was given for us on the cross ; 
it was not the figure of his blood* which was shed for us. There- 
fore he spoke of his real body and' blood, and his language was lite- 
ral and not figurative , And consequently Protestants, in appealing 
to figure, oppose the language and conduct of Jesus Christ, at every 
point of the promise, and of the institution of the holy Eucharist. 

As to the pretended “ absurdities and inexplicable difficulties, 
which you find in Christ’s words,” according to Catholic interpreta- 
tion, I must refer you to a higher tribunal. But the plain Scripture 
is, “ this is my body ; this is my blood.” And these plain words 
of Scripture , you tell us, are “ absurd,” unless we understand the 
contrary of what they assert ; so as to read “ this is not my body, 
but bread which is given for you ;” this is not my blood, but wine, 
which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.” This 
amendment of Scripture may relieve Jesus Christ from the imputa- 
tion of having used “ absurd” language, if you will have it so, but in 
that case I ask, is the Scripture plain and intelligible to all ? 

The attempt to convert St. Augustine, Bellarmine, Cardinal. Caje- 
tan, Bishop Fisher, &c., into Protestants on this subject, is what I 
would call overdoing the business. It proves your courage , not 
your cause. Bellarmine asserted that the doctrine of the real presence 
and Transubstantiation are clearly proved from Scripture , but he 
admitted the possibility of a man’s reading the Scripture, clear and 
plain as its language is, without being convinced. Just as you 
would say, that however clearly the divinity of Christ is revealed, it 
may still be doubted whether “a man who is not froward” will be 
convinced of it, by reading the Scriptures. 

Again, the passages which you quote from St. Augustine, (De 
Doct. Christ. Lib. 3. c. 46.) and from Theodoret, (Dial. 2.) and other 
passages from Origen, Ambrose, Isidore, Chrysostom, &c. which 
you copy from the Calvinistic objections of Claude and Aubertin, in 
their controversy with Nicole, are ambiguous, taken by themselves ; 
but taken with other passages, from the same Fathers in which, as I 
shall presently show, the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is clearly 
stated, they are quite intelligible. If you wish to see a full and 
complete refutation of all these ambiguous passages of the Fathers, 

I refer you to the third volume of “ Perpetuite de la Foi ;” in which 
they are triumphantly vindicated against the false meaning ascribed 
to them by the Calvinistic ministers. If you have not this work, I 
shall have great pleasure in loaning it, and you will see that these 
passages, which express neither the Catholic, nor the Protestant 
doctrine on the Eucharist, are reconcileable only with the former. 
Some of them, even as quoted by yourself, are a condemnation of 
the Protestant doctrine. For example, St. Isidore speaking of the 
bread and wine says, “ these two are visible, but being sanctified by 
the Holy Spirit, they pass into the Sacrament of his divine body.” 
This language from a Catholic pulpit would be understood. But 
how would it sound in the First Presbyterian Church on a Sacrament 
Sunday P If the minister were to speak of the bread and wine 
“ passing into” any thing, but what it was before, would not the 
people accuse him of teaching something very like “ Transubstantia- 


381 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

lion.” And yet this is made an objection ; and the rest are like 
it. Let us try another, which you quote from Theodoret. 

“ After sanctification the mystical symbols do not depart from 
their nature, for they remain still in their former substance and figure 
and form, and may be seen and touched just as before.” All this is 
true as to appearances: but he goes on to show that notwithstanding 
these appearances , “ they (the Eucharist) are understood to be that 
which they are made, and are believed and venerated (or “ adored”) 
as being what they are believed to be.” Would you venture to hold 
even this language to a Presbyterian congregation ? If you did, they 
would say that you are half a Papist, at least ; and you would be 
called to account for your sermon. And yet these are the proofs 
that the Fathers held the doctrine which you preach!!! Even the 
ambiguous language of the Fathers, is irreconcileable with the Protes- 
tant Lord’s supper of mere bread and wine. Even your own quota- 
tions are against you. 

The exceptions which you profess to find, as to the “ unanimous 
consent of the Fathers” on the Catholic faith of the Eucharist, have 
as mucli foundation in reality, as the contradictions which the Deist 
pretends to discover in the comparison of the four Gospels. In both 
cases there are apparent disagreements. But to proceed. After hav- 
ing claimed the testimony of Scripture by qualifying the affirmative 
words of Christ, with a Protestant negative , making him say “ no, 
this is not my body,” instead of what he actually said, “ this is my 
body ; this is my blood.” You appeal to the Fathers under your 
second head, for you “ will meet me at all points.” By this you 
would persuade our Protestant readers that the Fathers held the 
doctrine of mere bread and wine as they do. Now to our Protestant 
readers I leave the decision of the case, let them judge between us.” 

You state as a consequence from other statements, “that the Pro- 
testant doctrine (viz. mere bread and wine) was not only tolerated, 
but professed and held at large by the Fathers of the church.” What 
say the Fathers on the subject ? Hear them. 

Hear St. Ignatius, in his epistle to the faithful of Smyrna : “ These 
heretics abstain from the Eucharist and the oblations, because they do 
not acknowledge the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father re- 
suscitated by his goodness.” Who were the “Protestants” then? 
St. Ignatius or these heretics ? 

“How, says St. Irenaeus, can they, (other heretics) be assured 
that the bread over which they have given thanks, is the body of the 
Lord?” (Adver. Haer. Lib. 4. c. 34.) And again, no less than 
three times he repeats “ the Eucharist is the body of Jesus Christ, 
and it is made so by the word of God.” (Ibid. L. 5. c. 2.) This was 
in the Apostolic age, long before the year “ 1215.” 

St. Jerome, “ But as for us, let us hearken to what the Gospel tells 
us, that the bread which the Lord broke and gave to his disciples, is 
the body of our Lord and our Saviour , since he said to them ; take 
and eat, this is my body.” (Epist. ad Hedib.) 

St. Chrysostom says, “ The blessed chalice is the communion of 
the blood of Jesus Christ, it is very terrible, because that which is in 


382 


CONTROVERSY. 


the chalice is that which flowed from the side of Jesus Christ .” 
(Horn. 24. Epist. 1. ad. Cor. 

St. Ambrose says, “ He (Jesus) took bread into his holy hands ; 
before it is consecrated it is bread, after the words of Jesus Christ 
have been applied to it, it is the body of Jesus Christ. Hear what he 
says to you, take and eat ; this is my body. The Priest says, 
the body of Christ ; and you answer, Amen ; that is, it is true ; let 
your heart be penetrated with what your mouth confesses.” (De 
Sacr. Lib. 4. c. 5.) Would any minister dare to pronounce these 
words of the Fathers in a Protestant pulpit ? And yet you, Rev’d 
Sir, would persuade the poor people, that the doctrine of mere bread 
and wine, which Carlostadt invented in the sixteenth century, and 
bequeathed to Protestantism, was the doctrine of the Fathers ! ! ! 

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking of the consecrated chalice, asks 
“ who shall dare to say that it is not his blood ?” (Catech. 4.) 

Origen. “ When you receive the body of the Lord , you take 
all possible precaution that not the smallest part of it should fall.” 
(Horn. 13. in Exod.) 

Cyril of Alexandria. “Jesus Christ returns and appears in our 
mysteries invisibly as God, visibly in his body, and he gives us to 
touch his holy flesh." (Comment in Joann, p. 1104.) 

The Council of Nice decreed “ that neither canon nor custom 
has taught, that they (deacons) who have themselves no power to 
offer (i. e. in the sacrifice of mass) should give the body of Christ 
to them (viz. Priests) who have that power.” (Canon xviii.) 

St. Athanasius says: “Our sanctuaries are now pure, as they 
always were ; having been rendered venerable by the blood alone of 
Christ , and embellished by his worship.” (Apol. adver. Arian. T. 
1. p. 127.) “ Take care, then, he says, (in another place) take care, 
O Deacon, not to give to the unworthy the blood of the immaculate 
body , lest you incur the guilt of giving holy things to dogs.” (Serm. 
de Incontam. Myst. T. ii. p. 35.) 

St. Ephrem of Edessa. “ Abraham placed earthly food before 
celestial spirits, of which they ate, (Gen. xviii.) This was won- 
derful. But what Christ has done for us greatly exceeds this, and 
transcends all speech, and all conception. To us, that are in the 
flesh, he hath given to eat his body and blood. Myself incapable of 
comprehending the mysteries of God, I dare not proceed ; and 
should I attempt it, I should only show my own rashness.” , (De. 
Nat. Dei. T. iii. p. 182.) 

St. Optatus of Milevis, says, “ What is so sacrilegious as to break, 
to erase, and to remove the altars of God, on which yourselves 
made offerings. On them the vows of the people and the members 
of Christ were borne. For what is the altar, but the seat of the 
body and blood of Christ ? What offence had Christ given, whose 
body and blood at certain times, do dwell there? This huge impiety 
is doubled, whilst you broke also the chalices, the bearers of the 
blood of Christ.” (Contra Parmen, (the Donatist,) Lib. vi. p. 91, 
92, 93.) 

Now, Rev. Sir, if Donatists, or other persons were to destroy all 
the communion tables, and all the cups for the sacramental vine in 


383 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &e. 

the whole Protestant world; would any Protestant complain of it, in 
the language of St. Optatus ? And yet you would persuade the 
people that Protestants and the Fathers, believed the same doctrine 
touching the sacrament, and that the Catholic dogma was intro- 
duced, A. D. “ 1215.” • 

St. Basil. “ About the things that God has spoken, there should 
be no hesitation, nor doubt, but a firm persuasion, that all is true and 
possible, though nature be against it. Herein lies the struggle of 
faith. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How 
can this man give us his flesh to eat ? Then Jesus said to them : 
Amen, Amen, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son 
of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. John 
v. 53, 54.” (Regula viii. Moral. T. ii. p. 240.) 

You say the Fathers did not understand the 6th chapter of St. 
John as relating to the Eucharist. If you wish to correct this mis- 
take, you. have only to consillt Origen, (Horn, in Num, 16.) Cyprian 
(de csena Dorn. Lim. 1. Coutr. Judeos, c. 22.) Hilary, (Lib. de 
Trim) Basil, (de Reg. Moral.) Qhysostom, (Horn. 41. In Joann.) 
Ephiphanius, Hceres 55.) Ambr. (Lib. 4. de sacr. c. 5.). Augustine, 
(de Pecc. Mr. Lib. 1. c. 20.) Jerome, (Comm, in cap. 1. Ep. ad 
Ephes.) Jill the Fathers, all the Christians of all ages, understood 
the 6th Chapter of St. John of the Eucharist, except the Protestants ; 
and when they attempt to explain it otherwise, they make awk- 
ward business of it. 

When the Fathers speak of bread before the consecration, they 
mean bread ; when they call it bread after the consecration, they 
mean the body of Christ under the. appearance of bread, and so 
Catholics at this day are accustomed to call it the bread of life. 
This is proved by their adoring that which was contained under 
the appearances of bread and wine. Hear St. Augustine : 

“And because he (Christ) walked in the flesh, he. also gave 
us his very flesh to eat for our salvation ; but no one eat this 
flesh unless he adores it before hand so far are we froth com- 

mitting sin by adoring it, that we should commit sin in not 
adoring it-” (St. Aug. in Psalm 98.) 

St. Cyril. “Jesus Christ does not quicken us by the partici- 
pation of his spirit only, but also by giving us to eat the flesh 
which he assumed.” (De Incar. p. 707.) 

St. Augustine. “ God gives us to eat truly the body in which 
he suffered so much.” (In Psalm 33.) And again, “We re- 
ceive, says he, with a faithful heart and mouth , the mediator be- 
tween God and man , the man Christ Jesus, who has given us his 
body to eat , and his blood to drink , although it seems a more horrible 
thing to eat the flesh of a man , than to slay him, and to drink hu- 
man blood, than to shed it.” (Contr. Advaers. leg. et. proph. 
Lib. 2. c. 9.) St. Chrysostom. “The body of Jesus Christ is 
placed before us that we may touch it. ‘ O how I should desire, 
many of you exclaim,* says he, (addressing his audience) 

‘ how I should desire to see the form of his (Christ’s) counte- 
nance and of his clothes.* God has granted you more , for 
you touch himself, you eat himself.” (Horn. 83. in Matt.) 


384 


CONTROVERSY. 


Here, Rev. Sir, was your objection about eating God, mofe than 
seven centuries before “ 1215,” and “ Avenoes, the Arabian 
philosopher.” Was St. Chrysostom * were the believers whom 
he addressed in this language , Protestants P And yet you would 
persuade ^he people that the Fathers held the figurative sense, 
the mere bread and wine of Protestantism ! ! ! No ; the ra- 
tionalism , that is, in other words, the infidelity of Protestant- 
ism, would be shocked at the language of the Fathers, because 
it was and is, the language of the Catholic church. Protestant 
ministers, (if indeed they are aware of it themselves) dare not 
repeat in their pulpits, the doctrine of the Fathers in their own 
words. .The people would discover that the Fathers were 
Catholics , and that no Christians ever held your doctrines before 
the days of Carlostadius and Luther. What would they say, 
if to convince them that the Fathers held the doctrine of 
“ Evangelical Protestants” on the Eucharist, you were to quote 
th6 following testimony from St. Augustine. “ Who could un- 
derstand, my brethren, says this Father, how that saying, ‘he 
was borne in his hands could be accomplished in a man. For 
a person may be borne by the hands of another, but no one is 
borne in his own proper hands. We cannot understand this 
according to the letter of David, but we can understand it of 
Jesus Christ. For Jesus Christ was borne in his hands when 
speaking of his very body, he said, this is my body : for he bore 
his body in his hands •” (In Psalm 33.) How would the General 
Assembly stop their ears if any one were to propose this “ hard 
saying,” as the doctrine of “Evangelical Protestants,” and yet you 
have asserted that they hold the same doctrine with the Fathers, 
on the Eucharist ! This was the belief of the Church when St 
Augustine preached some fourteen hundred years ago ; it was 
the belief of the Church , when St. Ignatius reproached the 
Heretics with refusing to acknowledge that the Eucharist was 
the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, seventeen hundred years 
ago ; it is the belief of the Church this day. Were the Fathers 
Protestants ? 

St. Augustine. “ It has pleased the Holy Ghost that in the 
honour of this great Sacrament, the body of Jesus Christ should 
enter into the mouth of the Christian before all other meats.” 
(Epist. ad Januar.) Do we not still receive fasting ? 

St. Cyril. “Since Jesus Christ is in us, by his proper flesh, we 
shall assuredly rise again.” (In Joann. L. 4. p. 363.) 

Again Cyril of Jerusalem. “That which Appears to be 
bread is not bread , although the taste judge it to be bread, but it 
is the body of Jesus Christ: and that which appears to be wine, 
is not wine , although the taste testifies that it is, but it is the 
blood of Jesus Christ .” (Catech. 9.) Have I given enough to 
show Protestants how far they have been deceived by their 
books and their ministers, (I do not say intentionally) when it is 
pretended that the Fathers of the first six centuries were not 
Catholics ? Here are positive statements of the Christian be- 
lief of the Eucharist in their days. Was it the Protestant belief? 
Mere figure ; mere bread and wine ? Let any sensible Protestant 


385 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, Ac. 

reader compare these testimonies with what his minister tells 
him of the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, and ask him- 
self in the presence of God, whether the Protestant doctrine is 
not diametrically opposed to that of the Fathers of the first 
six centuries ? 

Under the third head, you bring up the objection of reason 
and the senses. But the example of the Jews at Capernaum, of 
the Socinians, and Deists among ourselves should teach you, 
that in the mysteries of the Christian Revelation these are but sorry 
guides. We may reason on the question whether a mystery has 
been revealed ; and if the evidence be sufficient, to convince us 
that it has ; then we believe. By reason you cannot understand 
the mystery of the Trinity. By the senses you can discover 
nothing of the Saviour’s divinity, when, hanging on the cross he 
cried out, “ My God, my God ! Why hast thou for saken 
me.” But this mode of attacking a mystery is sufficiently 
exemplified in the introduction. The Presbyterian selects one 
dogma; the Unitarian another; the Universalist a third; but all 
work with the same weapons. When you deny that the “ real 
presence” of the Holy Ghost, under the forms and appearances, 
length, breadth, thickness, and all the external properties of a 
dove, is a parallel case with “the real presence” of Jesus 
Christ, under the forms and appearances of bread and wine you 
affect to discover a difference which but few minds, except 
your own, can perceive. The ground, it seems, of this differ- 
ence is that Christ, “as man,” cannot (what !) be present on the 
earth ; “ he is seated on his throne in heaven.” But have you 
forgotten that, notwithstanding all this, he appeared to St. Paul 
on his way to Damascus ? If you have, I refer you to Acts ix. 
17 . Christ did not cease to be on his throne, by appearing to St. 
Paul on the' way; therefore his body can.be in two places at 
once, and if in two, so in a million of places, and yet be at the 
right hand. His body is spiritual, that is, endowed with the 
properties of a spirit. Can you tell what those are? Can 
you say that such a body cannot exist under the appearances 
of bread and wine P When the Deist retorts your argument, 
against the Bible itself, what will you have to reply ? When you 
tell him that the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove ; 
“what !” he will exclaim, “ that there should be a long, broad, 
thick, white, heavy, moist, active, passive, feathered flying, 
nothing ; and that this strange something nothing, seeming; 
dove, and not a dove, the Holy Ghost, and yet seeming a dove, 
should descend on a man in the Jordan, and yet be living in 
heaven entire and quiescent, while all this is going on upon 
earth, is, I say, an infinite absurdity.” Pardon me, Sir, he will 
continue, the expression seems harsh, and the objection savours 
of levity, ridicule, and, as you Christians would* say, blasphemy : 
but to the honour of Deism , I must inform you that I learned it 
from a Christian minister. It is your own, extracted literally 
from your Letter No. XXX. on “Transubstantiation.” How 
will you meet this Deist? Will you have the courage to 
destroy your own child ? And if you would, will you have the 


386 


CONTROVERSY. 


power ? Has not the press made it immortal? And if you dis- 
own it, will it not be adopted by the Deists, and arrayed 
against its Christian parentage. 

When you call Transubstantiation a miracle, and institute a 
parallel between it and the miracles which prove the truth of 
Christianity, do you not grossly (I will not say intentionally) de- 
ceive your readers ? These being intended as proofs were ad- 
dressed to the senses. The miracle of the Eucharist is like the 
miracle of the Incarnation, acknowledged by faith, made known, 
not by taste , hearing , sight , smell , or touch , but by the Revelation 
of Jesus Christ. Hence the Jews are reproached by. him be- 
cause they would not believe , and the Protestants do not believe. 
But the Apostles believed, the apostolic Fathers believed, the 
Catholic church, of whose faith they are witnesses, believed, 
and believes. So that when you say “ Hume cannot be confuted, 
if Transubstantiation be true,” you impose grossly (without 
intending, it, I hope) upon the ignorance of Protestant readers. 
Christ proposed a mystery, and you wish to prove by your 
senses , that he does not deceive! ! ! Catholics are not so distrust- 
ful. Jesus. Christ has said so , that is enough. The true , real 
body and blood of Christ exist in the sacrament of the Eucharist, 
not in the natural manner in which they existed on the cross, 
but in the spiritual, supernatural manner in which they existed, 
when they were given at the last supper, or when they entered 
the room where the disciples were, the doors being closed. 
(John xx. 19.) He said to Thomas, “a spirit hath not flesh 
and bones as ye see. me to have.” Yet we find that he, having 
“flesh and bones” which were touched by St. Thomas, entered 
an apartment, the doors being closed ! How could an entrance into 
a closed apartment be effected by a human body consisting of 
flesh and bones , which all could see . and touch? The Bible 
states the fact — does the philosophy of Bacon and of Newton 
explain it ? Can you, Rev. Sir, explain it ? Did Christ’s 
body penetrate through the wall, or the door ? Then, there 
were two bodies existing in the same space at the same time! 
Here then are two facts: 1. That the body of Christ was at 
the same time in two places, viz. in heaven and on the way 
to Damascus. 2. That the body of Christ existed in the same 
spkce which was occupied by the closed door or wall , through 
which he entered the apartment, where the disciples were : 
By both of which it is proved , that the body of Christ is not un- 
der the government of natural laws, and therefore, that your 
argument, founded on the laws that govern bodies in their 
natural condition , whilst it proves nothing against the real and sub - 
stantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist , is a flat contradic- 
tion of the Bible, in the two cases referred to, and comes mal- 
a-propos from ah evangelical Protestant. Neither is it correct in 
philosophy. For we know nothing of space, abstractedly from 
the relations of bodies existing in their natural condition ; nor 
of time, except by the succession of perceptible events. Of the 
manner therefore, in which spirits , or the spiritual body of 
Jesus Christ , are effected by time and space , permit me to say 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


387 


that you and we are all equally and utterly ignorant. And yet 
with a mind ignorant of what is space — ignorant of what is 
time — ignorant of the relations which they bear to the spiritual 
body of Jesus Christ— ignorant of the properties of that body, 
you rise up against the express and reiterated, declaration of the 
Saviour, against the doctrine of all the Fathers, and of the 
whole Christian world before, and except the Protestants 5 
and in the plenitude of all this ignorance , you scan the attri- 
butes of the eternal God , circumscribe the ocean of Divine Om- 
nipotence, by your ideas of time and space, and proclaim that 
the real presence of the body of Christ in the mystery of the 
Eucharist is “ an infinite absurdity ! ! 1” Deists, Rev. Sir, 
never made a more arrogant , perverted , or fallacious use of 
reason, than this is. Reason knows nothing of these matters, ex- 
cept as they are revealed ; and the haughty little blunderer may 
return to its nut-shell, convinced of its own impotence , and satis- 
fied that the son of God would not have required of us to believe 
any thing which is absurd. So much for the deistical ob- 
jection of reason and the senses. ** - 

Under this head also, you introduced the silence of the ene- 
mies of Christianity in the primitive church ; having nothing 
to hope from the Fathers, said , on the subject, you expect 
something from what the Jews, Pagans , and apostate Christians 
did not say. u Celsus, Porphyry, Lucian, Julian and Trypho, 
would have written (as Protestant ministers do) against the doc- 
trine of Christ’s real presence, if it had been believed in their 
time as it is now in the Catholic church.” Answer 1. The 
knowledge of the Christian mysteries, and the administration of 
the sacraments was inviolably concealed from Jews and Pagans 
by the “ discipline of the secret,” for an account of which 
you may consult Bingham and Mosheim, though they are not 
the best authority. 2. I have proved already from the Fathers, 
that the belief of Christ’s real flesh in the Eucharist did exist. 
3. The charge made against the Christians of “ murdering a 
child , and eating its flesh in their secret assemblies ,” proves that 
the Jews and Pagans had a confused vague knowledge of the 
doctrine of the Eucharist. 4. With regard to Julian the apostate, 
we cannot know whether he wrote against the doctrine or not, 
since his theological works have been lost. St. Cyril in his pre- 
face tells us, that he had written three books against the Chris- 
tians. Of the contents of them we know nothing, except a 
part of one to which Cyril replied. Who knows then, that in the 
others he did not prove himself a sound Protestant by attacking 
the Eucharist, and pronouncing it an “infinite absurdity?” 
It is like his language. 

The IV. head is on the origin of the doctrine. Here you deny 
having asserted “ that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not 
held before the year 1215.” I am glad to see you deny your asser- 
tions, but it would be more magnanimous to recall them and acknow- 
ledge that you were mistaken. Put the matter has been already 
sufficiently disposed pf, in the introduction. 

V. Head you ask “ how we can discern the body and blood af- 


3SS 


CONTROVERSY. 


ter consecration ?” I answer, by faith. By believing with St. 
Augustine that “ it is the body of Jesus Christ in which he suffered ,” 
and with St. Ignatius that it is “/Ae flesh of Jesus Christ ,” with St. 
Chrysostom that “ what is in the chalice is what flowed from his 
side” and with Christ himself that it is “ his body and blood.” 
And now I ask you how can Protestants discern it at all P Since 
they will not allow even faith to believe that the “ body of the 
Lord” is there. Would St. Paul require the Corinthians to discern 
the body of the Lord in the sacrament, if the body of the Lord were 
not really and truly there, though in a supernatural manner, imper- 
vious to the senses ? No, certainly. 

You ask, “ does not this pretended miracle degrade Christ’s hu- 
manity, and deify the operating Priest?” I answer first, that it is 
a miracle, which faith alone can appreciate, and that your language 
is a gross imposition on the ignorance of Protestants, when you 
speak of it as a miracle for the senses to judge of. Is this inten- 
tional ? and if it be, is it honest P 

I answer secondly, that the priest offering “ the sacrifice,” acts as 
the minister and by the authority of Jesus Christ — just as you pro- 
fess to do, when you preach the Gospel. Is this “deifying” either 
the priest or the parson ? Can you be serious when you employ 
such expressions P I answer thirdly, that so far from degrading 
the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, glorifies, the Saviour’s hu- 
manity, and the Saviour himself. Because we believe in his veracity 
when he said “ this is my body,” and the flesh which the Jews 
seeing scourged and spit upon, that same the Catholics adore with- 
out seeing — as if to atone for the insults. 

VI. Head. Under this you make a difficulty respecting the 
priest’s “ intention.” To this I reply that there is no ground to 
suppose, that a priest who administers a sacrament should have 
the intention not to administer. In heaven, or on earth, in time or 
in eternity, there is no motive for him to withhold his intention, 
and deliberate wicked actions without any motive or inducement, 
are not to be presumed. The Presbytery that ordains a Calvinistic 
minister, would constitute thereby a real minister if it depended on 
intention, and whenever we say that it does not, we predicate on the 
absence, not of intention, but of power. The Presbytery cannot 
give, what it does not possess — however much it may intend it. 

VII. and last head. Here you affect to be amused at my claim- 
ing the ancient Liturgies as teaching (the doctrine of) Transubstan- 
tiation, and venture to assert that there is not one word of truth in all 
I have said on that subject. I must say .that you never “ ventured” 
on a more hazardous experiment in your life — the appeal to the 
Fathers not excepted. I have not room here to quote the words of 
those liturgies. But at a proper time I shall lay them before the 
public, and let Protestants see with their own eyes, how grossly 
they are imposed upon, when they are told, that before Luther there 
ever were Christians that believed as they do. In the mean time I 
shall mention two facts which will show how little of Protestantism 
is in these Liturgies. 

In the early part of the seventeenth century the Duke of Saxony 


3S9 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

had been persuaded that Protestantism, vainly sought for in the 
primitive church, was to be found abundantly in the ancient liturgies 
of the heretics in the east. Accordingly he sent an eminent ori- 
ental scholar, John Michael Vensleb to examine. This examination 
resulted in his conversion to the Catholic faith. Afterwards, 
he travelled in the east, and procured no less than five hundred 
manuscripts for the French King’s Library. One of these, the 
Liturgy of Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, was published in 
London in 1661. He had been the pupil of the celebrated oriental 
scholar, Ludolf. A similar discovery in the examination of the 
Eastern Liturgies, caused the conversion to the Catholic faith of 
Vigne, a Calvinistic minister of Grenoble , about the same time. 
(Le. Brnn vol. 4. p. 467.) These two facts are ample proof, that 
on the Eucharist all the liturgies of the east and west, teach the real 
presence by the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood 
of Jesus Christ. This I shall make appear at large. 

I have now answered the arguments of your letter to the satis- 
faction, I trust, of the public, if not of its author. Did the Fathers, 
up to St. Ignatius, in the very age of the Apostles, hold, or did they 
not, the Catholic doctrine of the real presence of the glorified body 
of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist ? If they did not. 
then take up, one after the other, the passages I have quoted, and 
tell us what they mean. If they did— then Catholics are right, and 
Protestants are wrong, on your own admission, for you claimed the 
Fathers, and professed yourself ready “ to meet me at all points.” 
If then the Fathers, up to the apostolic age, held the true doctrine, 
does it not follow that Protestants have been led to forsake the faith 
of Jesus Christ ? Let them reflect on it. 

I have no objection to the compliments which you pay to the great 
men of the Episcopal church. But you might have left the name 
of “Usher” out, and substituted those of Drs. Bowen and Cooke 
of Kentucky, and of Mr. Briton, of New York, who have so tri- 
umphantly vindicated, at least, one article of Catholic belief against 
the errors of Presbyterianism. These names I know are not in 
good odour at Princeton, but their triumph is not the less complete 
on that account. 

The Bookseller who was forbidden to keep my review of Bishop 
Onderdonk’s charge for sale, is the Agent of the Baptist Tract De- 
pository, and my informant is Mr. Fithian, whose note see below. 
Now I shall answer your questions by number. 

To the 1st. I say that Pope Liberius did not sign the Arian Creed 
in the Arian sense or meaning v 

To the 2d, that no council, recognized by the Catholic church, 
ever “adopted” the Arian Creed. For the errors of other councils 
or general assemblies, the church is not accountable. 

To the 2d. I reply, I have answered it already, the VI. head. 

To the 4th compound question, I answer 1st, that there were pre- 
tenders to the see of Rome, besides the rightful occupant, and in this 
sense there were schism in the Popedom — 2, that Catholics have no 
difficulty in knowing who was the true Pope, and 3, that a false 
Pope is no Pope. 


390 


CONTROVERSY. 


To the 5th. about the freedom of the press at Rome, and the 
“ Prohibiting Committee” which you are pleased to imagine for the 
benefit of “all the church,” I answer, that the latter does not exist, 
and the former is a question on which every man may abound in his 
own sense. 

To the 6th. I answer, that money given to a priest for any sacred 
function is not given, and cannot lawfully be received as an equiva- 
lent, but either as alms, deeds, or for support, on the principle that 
they who serve at the altar should live by the altar. 

To the 7th. I answer, that in my opinion , religion and science 
suffered by the suppression of the Jesuits, and that both are gainers 
by their restoration. This opinion is founded on the fact that they 
are hated for their zeal, and admired for their learning by all the infi- 
dels in Europe. As to the Inquisition, it may have been a good thing 
-—abused. 

To the 8th and last, I answer that so far as the traditions of the 
Jewish church had reference to the 'ceremonial law, they expired 
with it. So far as they regarded proof of Jewish faith before the 
coming of Christ, I do not reject them. 

Yours, <fec. John Hughes. 

As the publisher of “ the Review,” I supplied a number of Book- 
sellers with it on commission ; among others, the Depository of the 
Baptist Tract Society. As I was personally acquainted with them 
generally, I called in occasionally to inquire if I should send more, 
&c. and was informed by the Assistant Agent that the number which 
I had sent them was all sold, but orders had been given him not to 
receive and offer for sale any more. M. Fithian. 


CONTROVERSY. No. XXXII. 

IS THE~ PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF CHRIST 1 

Philadelphia , September 1th , 1833. 

To the Rev. John Hughes. 

Sir, — In my last letter I produced the distinct testimony of three 
several Roman Catholic historians, in support of my charges against 
the infamous lives of the clergy and Popes of Rome. This was 
done in answer to your challenge, to the following effect, viz. “Name 
the page of the Catholic historian who states what you have asserted, 
and I pledge myself again to expose you .” (Letter No. XXIX.) 
And now when these connecting authorities are adduced, how do 
you meet them ? 

Thuanus you reject, saying that he was twice condemned at 
Rome by public decrees, in 1609 and 1757. Were these decrees 
issued by General Councils, approved by Popes ? If not, they are 
of no weight in this question. But they were not, for the last Coun- 
cil (that of Trent) sat more than fifty years before the first of these 
dates ! How then can you say that he is not a Catholic historian ? 
Does the Church condemn him ? Has he not written the truth ? 
Yes ; and it is for this that you reject him, as you did Bellarmine 
when his testimony became insupportable, though you informed me 
once , that he was a standard writer in the church of Rome. Dupin 
was my second witness. You answer, “ we disown him !” So you 
do the Bible, as a rule of faith ; and for the same reason, that it does 
not teach Romanism , if left to speak for itself. Dupin not a “ Ca- 
tholic historian I 1 ’ And why ? Because he does not deny or conceal 
the corruptions of Popes, Prelates, and Priests. “ He is your ene- 
my because he tells you the truth.” This is a summary method of 
disposing of an author ; not forsooth, because what he says is proved 
to be false ; but because he condemns the party whose history he 
writes, and because the condemned party finds fault with him for 
doing it. 

But you are forced to own that my third witness, Baronius, “ is a 
Catholic historian.” 

Here then we join issue. 

On this reference, you speak so unlike a gospel minister, or Chris- 
tian gentleman, that I assure you I feel ashamed to be dragged be : 
fore the community in such company. After language which shows 
a desperate and infatuated state of mind, you propose the following 
extraordinary course— 

“ To put the matter to rest, I shall mark the pages, and leave two 
copies of Baronius, the one in Latin, the other in Italian, at the 
Athenaeum on Thursday morning, together with a copy of your let- 
ter for the curious to compare the one with the other. The public 
will then see which of us is to be exposed.” * 

From such a trial I shrink not, except for the indecent coarseness 
and vulgarity with which it is proposed to be made, and at which 
every honourable mind must revolt. The volume and my friend 
were at the Athenaeum at the appointed hour ; and by referring to 
the Postscript you will see that 1 was fully prepared to meet you at 


392 


CONTROVERSY. 


« allpoints .” But the passage in Baronius to which I referred you, 
was only one oj a hundred furnished by this “Catholic historian.” 
He relates, for example, that Pope Alexander VI., A. D. 1492, (see 
Baronius’ Annals, Vol. 19, p. 413 et seq.) was elected by Cardi- 
nals, some of whom were bribed, some allured by promises of pro- 
motion, and some enticed by fellowship in his vices and impurities, 
to give him their suffrages. He refers to various authors who com- 
plained that he was (insignem stupris) famous for his debauchery ; 
he tells us of his vile example (pessimo exemplio) in keeping (pel- 
licem Romanam Vanoziam) a Roman strumpet Vanozia, by whom 
he had many children ; that he conferred wealth and honours on 
them, and even created one of them, Caesar Borgia, (an inordinately 
wicked man,) archbishop of the church. The same writer (Vol. 
11th. p. 145, &c.) records the election of Benedict the 9th, at the 
age of twelve years, which he says was accomplished by gold , and 
he calls it (“ horrendum ac detestabile visu”) “ horrible and detesta- 
ble to behold yet he adds that the whole Christian world acknow- 
ledged Benedict, without controversy, to be a true Pope. This man 
he represents as a monster of iniquity, and relates, that after death 
he appeared to a certain Valcus in a hideous shape, and informed him 
that he was doomed to everlasting woe ! 

Once more : the same author (vol. 10. pp. 742,3.) informs us 
at large of the villanies and infamous conduct of the notorious Pope 
Stephen the 7th. The following sentence conveys the history ' of 
his unparalleled wickedness in a single line. Ita quidem passus fa- 
cinorosus homo quique ut fur et latro ingressus est in ovile ovium, 
laqueo vitam adeo inf^mi exitu vindice Deo clausit “ Thus perished 
this villanous man, who entered the .sheep-fold as a thief and a rob- 
ber ; and who in the retribution of God, ended his days by the in- 
famous death of the halter.” There have been probably not less 
than two hundred Popes whose lives furnish in a greater or less de- 
gree confirmation of the charges which I have already made. There 
is not in the history of human crime such a catalogue as is furnished 
by the lives of the Popes. No list of Mahommedan or Syracusan 
tyrants — no annals of human barbarity, debauch, and infamy — no 
history of any age or any people furnish such a picture of depravity. 
Let any reader consult Baronius, or Boyer, or Dupin, or Thuanus, 
or even the popular Encyclopedias of the day, and he will find our 
description abundantly sustained. When, therefore, you speak of 
“ Magdalen Reports,” and refer to the history of crime in our coun- 
try, remember, that the infamous women of whom you speak are 
not Protestants ; and that it is the Protestant church which is seek- 
ing their reform ; while on the other hand the history which I have 
given above, is the history not only of your Priesthood, but of your 
Popes. 

I. Your defence of the celibacy of the clergy, carries its own ex- 
posure with it. You say, “ as to the charge that the Catholic church 
forbids marriage, it is untrue.” But in the next sentence you own, 
that “the law of her Priesthood enjoins celibacy and chastity, but 
no one is compelled to enter into the ministry of her sanctuary.” But 
pray who authorized her to make a law enjoining celibacy on th$ 


393 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &o 

Priesthood? The Bible says “ marriage is honourable in all;” but 
the church of Rome says it is not honourable in the Priesthood. 
The Bible confers on Bishops, in so • many words, the privilege of 
marriage ; whereas the church of Rome in : so many words forbids 
it, and anathematizes those who dissent from her. This is what I 
call “ fighting against God;” it is in fact nothing less than cursing 
God. If, as you say, •“ no man is compelled to enter the ministry” 
in your church (which, however, is far from the truth in Spain 
Italy, &c.) yet do you not compel those whom God may call into the 
ministry, to abandon their families or else stay out of the Priesthood ? 
And I ask is not this tyranny ; is not this the most daring species of 
oppression and rebellion against God ? Your defence of Bellarmine 
is a full exemplification of the spirit and corrupt principles of the 
Jesuits. Bellarmine as cited by me contends “that it is a greater 
evil to marry under the vow of celibacy .than to commit fornication ;” 
you say that “ under such a vow, marriage is essentially null and 
void ;” and you ask “ whether an act of conjugal infidelity in a 
married person is as great a sin as polygamy ? ” Bellarmine’s rea- 
son for his opinion is that one who is married after a vow of celibacy 
is incapable, for the future, of keeping the vow, whereas one who 
commits fornication may quit it and return to his vow. Now on 
your principles, as marriage under a vow is “ null and void,” it fol- 
lows that the wife may as properly be forsaken as the mistress ; 
‘therefore Bellarmine’s reason can have no weight. And then we 
are brought to this, that a Priest who cannot or will not keep his 
vow of celibacy, had better keep a mistress than get a wife ! This 
is the reasoning, and this the morality of the Rev. John Hughes ! Is 
it to be wondered at then, that the Priests of the church of Rome are 
often found to be fathers , though they have no wives P When you 
charge our Confession of Faith with giving a license to commit sin 
(see Confession of Faith, chap. 24.) as it grants divorce in case of 
adultery, you forget that you condemn the Lord of Glory, for he has 
said (Matt. xix. 9.) “ whosoever shall put awaj his wife, except it 
be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” 
Here is a full warrant for divorce in the case supposed. 

On the subject of intolerance and exclusive salvation, you seem to 
be conscious in your late letter that your church cannot be defended ; 
and your last, though fruitless effort, is to prove that the Presbyte- 
rian church is as intolerant as your own. But it is a failure to the 
extent of being even ludicrous. So far from excluding other deno- 
minations of Christians from heaven, we cherish the hope that God 
numbers many of his own children among those who are subjected 
to the despotism of the Pope ; but we are free to acknowledge, that 
this hope almost expires when we reach the Priesthood of your 
church. The records of past ages and the daily developments of 
the present time, tell us in a language which we cannot misunder- 
stand, that the clergy of your church, taken as a body, have been 
and are the most guilty and most dangerous men with whom this 
fallen world has ever been cursed. You deny that once every year 
the Pope of Rome excommunicates all Protestants, and refuses abso- 
lution to their abettors, harbourers, readers of their books, &c. I 

3D 


394 


CONTROVERSY. 


know not whether most to wonder at your assurance or your igno- 
rance. Cardinal Tolet (Istruct. sacred, cap. 20, 32.) tells us with 
the most copious distinctness that this is the fact. Can it be possible 
that you have never seen or heard of the famous Bulla Coenae in 
which the Pope annually curses Protestants as I have said ; claims 
power over kings, denounces all governments who tax Papists with- 
out his consent, who harbour heretics, furnish them with arms, read 
their books, <fcc. &c. Strange that you have never heard of this 
Bull, though it requires you once a year to publish it to the faithful ! 

II. We next proceed to notice your ineffectual effort at the defence 
of transubstantiation. You struggle in the toils of truth and self- 
contradiction in which you have been caught, with a pertinacity and 
desperation which would excite compassion if you were labouring 
in a better cause. A brief notice of the several particulars is all that 
is necessary, for you have met none of my arguments, and as will 
soon appear, have still more ‘deeply involved yourself. You attempt 
to prove me guilty of contradiction when I admit that Berringer was 
condemned for denying transubstantiation in 1059, while I say that 
it was not an article of faith until 1215. But do you remember that 
in Berringer’s day, amidst the controversies on this disputed point, 
even the terms in which the parties expressed their opinions were 
not fixed ? Berringer’s first recantation, (before a Council in which 
the majority held the real presence) was in such crude and shocking 
language as the following ; “ the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ 
is broken by the Priest’s hands, and ground ‘by the teeth of the faith- 
ful. But the party for transubstantiation afterwards found that his 
recantation was worse than the former Protestant doctrine which 
he held ; so after many years his recantation was amended ; and 
he finally returned to his first opinion, and was backed in it 
by half the church. Any one acquainted with the history of the 
church must know as Scotus, and Tonstal, and Durand, and Eras- 
mus, &c. (all Roman Catholic writers) informs us, that until 
1215, it was a disputed question sustained on each side with 
great warmth, that the church allowed her members to hold either 
side without censure ; and that even after it was decreed in 1215 
to be a doctrine which all must believe, it was received on au- 
thority and not from the Bible. So we are informed by Cajetan, 
Scotus, Durand, Ocham, Biel, Contarinus, Melchior, Cane, Fisher, 
&c. all Roman Catholic writers. Bellarmine, Bruys and Sirmond 
tell us that Pascasius in the 9th century was the first author who 
expressly wrote on the real presence. Bertram answered him ; yet 
he was no heretic, and for two hundred years his work was circulated 
and not condemned. This said work was revived after the Refor- 
mation in support of Protestantism by the Reformers. After this. 
Cardinals, the Pope and the Committee of the Index at Rome de- 
nounced Bertram’s book; yet Mabbillon in 1680 proved beyond all 
doubt that it was the genuine work of Bertram. Dq not such facts 
incontestibly prove the novelty of transubstantiation ; and the anti- 
quity of the Protestant doctrine ? 

1. Your renewed attempts to derive this doctrine from the Scrip- 
ture grow worse and worse' at every step. If you take the words 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


395 


* 5 this is my body” literally, why will you not also take literally all 
the remaining words of institution, viz. “ this cup is the New Testa- 
ment in my blood ?” Why did you not answer my argument on 
this point ? Have you not one word then to say in reply to all that 
was presented in my last letter showing the absurdity of your inter- 
pretation of Scripture? Must not the public and even your own peo- 
ple see and own that you abandon the Scripture defence of your 
doctrine ? Is not the Bible against you ? When you give us, letter 
after letter, teeming columns of perverted testimonies from the 
“ Fathers,” and furnish only a solitary line from the word of God, 
what can such dearth of Scripture mean but that Scripture is against 
you ? 

2. As to the Fathers, even admitting that some of them are for 
you, then by your own rule of faith as you have not their “ unani- 
mous consent,” their proof is of no value to you. This is a point 
of which you are manifestly afraid, and which you have never 
touched though presented to you in my letter, No 1. In your last 
letter you barely say as follows : “ The exceptions which you pro- 
fess to find, as to the ‘ unanimous consent of the Fathers’ on the 
Catholic faith of the Eucharist, have as much foundation in reality, 
as the contradictions which the Deist pretends to discover in the com- 
parison of the four Gospels. In both cases there are apparent disa- 
greements.” If by this you mean to say that “ the Fathers” are as 
unanimous as the four Gospels, then surely you ought never again 
to speak evil of the Deist. Yet this is all you say in defence of 
their unanimity. I have proved in my last letter that the Fathers, 
as a body, rejected transubstantiation. But to settle this question 
and give you the opportunity of making out their unanimity in sup- 
port of your doctrine, let me here summarily present to you a few 
specimens. If you will reconcile them to your doctrine of the real 
presence, then will I concede that the Fathers are yours. But until 
you do, by your own confession, your rule of faith rejects this doc- 
trine. Besides when some of the Fathers appear to agree with you 
in calling the bread the ‘ body and the flesh ’ of Christ, &c. meaning 
the sign of his body and flesh, they can be reconciled to our views ; 
but when they call it ‘ a figure of his body,’ and say ‘ the nature of 
bread still remains after consecration,’ that ‘ it is wicked to say we 
eat the flesh of Christ,’ &c. they cannot be reconciled with your doc- 
trine. Therefore they either contradict each other , or all of them are 
for us. 

Augustine, whom you claim, (De doctrin. Christian, Lib. 3. cap. 
46.) thus writes : — If the saying be perceptive, either forbidding a 
wicked action, or commanding to do that which is good, it is no 
figurative saying ; but if it seems to command any vill&ny or wick- 
edness, or forbid what is profitable and good, it is figurative. This 
saying, ‘ except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his 
blood, ye have no life in you,’ (John vi. 53.) seems to command a 
wicked or villanous thing ; it is therefore a figure, enjoining us to 
communicate in the passion of our Lord ; and to lay it up in dear 
and profitable remembrance , that his flesh was crucified and wounded 
for our sakes.” Chrysostom (Epis. ad Gaesarium Monachum.) says, 


396 


CONTROVERSY. 


“ Christ is both God and man : God, for that he cannot suffer ; man, 
fdr that he suffered. One Son, one Lord, he, the same without doubt, 
having one dominion, one power of two natures ; not that these na- 
tures are consubstantial, seeing each of them does retain, without 
confusion its own properties , and being two are not confused in Him. 
For as (in the Eucharist) before the bread is consecrated, we call it 
bread ; but when the grace of God by the Priest has consecrated it, 
it has no longer the name of bread, but is counted worthy to be called 
the Lord’s body, although the nature of bread remains in it, and we 
do not say that there are two bodies, but one body of the Son : so 
here, the divine nature being joined to the (human) body, they both 
together make one Son, one person ; but yet they must be acknow- 
ledged to remain without confusion, and after an indivisible manner, 
not in one nature only, but in two perfect natures.” 

The Eutychians, against whom this Father wrote, denied that 
Christ had two natures, that is, that he was truly a man and truly 
God also. Now he uses the example of the Eucharist to illustrate 
the two natures of Christ ; and argues, that though “ the nature of 
the bread remains the same” after consecration, and the nature of 
Christ’s body in Heaven remains the same, yet they are both called 
his body ; so the manhood of Christ and the Godhead of Christ re- 
main each unchanged, though they are both together called one Son 
of God. What he says would be inapplicable and absurd, if the 
bread be really changed into the body of Christ. Tertullian (Adv. 
Marcion. L. 4. c. 40,) says, “ Christ taking the bread and distribut- 
ing it to his disciples, made it his body, saying, this is my body, 
i. e. this is the figure of my body ! Now it would not have been a 
figure or representation of Christ’s body, if Christ’s body had not 
been a true and real body.” Marcion, against whom Tertullian 
wrote, denied that Christ had a true body, and held, that it was one 
only in appearance. Tertullian proves that he had a real body, in 
the above passage, by showing that the bread in the Eucharist was a 
figure of his body, and the argument was this : how could a phan- 
tasm or shadow which was not a real body, have a figure to repre- 
sent it ? Now suppose Tertullian to have believed the doctrine of 
Transubstantiation, then his argument would have been in the high- 
est degree absurd. Nay, Marcion might have turned it directly 
against him ; for he would have retorted thus : “You say that the 
accidents and appearance of bread subsist in the Sacrament without 
the substance of bread. Why then could not the accidents and ap- 
pearance of a body subsist in Christ without the substance of a body?” 
There could not be therefore a stronger proof that Tertullian rejected 
Transubstantiation. Epiphanius, (In Anchorat.) “ We see that our 
Saviour took in his hands, (viz. bread,) and having given thanks, 
said, this is mine, and that ; and yet we see, that it is not equal to 
it, nor like it ; not to the incarnate image , not to the invisible Deity, 
not to the lineaments of members ; for this (the bread) is of a round 
form, and insensible as to any power.” Once more ; Augustine, 
(De utilit. Poenitentiae Cap. 1.) “The Apostle says that our fathers, 
not the fathers of unbelievers, not the fathers of the wicked that did 
eat and die, but our fathers, the fathers of the faithful, did eat spirit- 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


397 


ual meat, and therefore the same, (with us.) For there were such 
there, to whom Christ was more tasteful in their heart than manna 
in their mouth. Whosoever understood Christ in the manna did eat 
the same spiritual meat we do. So also the same drink, for the rock 
teas Christ. Therefore they drank the same drink we do, but spirit- 
ual drink, that is drink which was received by faith , not what was 
swallowed down the body. They ate therefore the same meat, the 
same to those that understand and believe ; but to them that do not 
understand, it was only that manna , only that vmter .” And just 
after this he says, “ it is the same Christ, though under the different 
form of words, * Christ to come ,’ or that has come (Venturus, et 
venit ; diversa verba sunt, sed idem Christus.) Here it is manifest 
that this Father did not believe in Transubstantiation. In explaining 
the Apostle’s declaration in 1 Cor. x. 3 — 4. as to the manna and the 
water and the wilderness, he tells us “ that our fathers did spiritually 
eat and drink of the same Christ with ourselves but if our eating 
now be Christ’s natural body, then their meat and ours was not the 
same ; for as Christ had not then taken flesh upon him, those fathers 
in the wilderness could not have eaten it in a carnal sense. This is 
made more obvious by his Tract 45, in John, where he says, “ the 
signs are varied, faith remaining the same. There the rock was 
Christ ; to us that which was laid on the altar is Christ ; and they 
drank of the water that flowed from the rock for a great Sacrament 
of the same Christ ; and what we drink the faithful knew. If you 
regard the visible species , it is another thing ; if the intelligible sig- 
nification , they drank the same spiritual drink.” If this be not good 
Protestant doctrine, I know not what is. The usages also of the 
Fathers show in the most striking light that they did not believe in 
the real presence. Anciently it was the custom to give what re- 
mained of the consecrated bread to little children for food ; some- 
times they burned it in the fire ; they even made plasters of it for 
the sick ; they sent it from one to another as a token of communion ; 
and they sometimes mixed the consecrated wine with ink for writing 
things of importance. Does this look like the real body and the real 
blood of Christ ? Could the Fathers thus sacrilegiously treat the 
Son of God ? Impossible ! It is clear that they held no such be- 
lief as yours. How unlike this were these usages to those of the 
present church of Rome. With you, if a drop of the wine be spilled, 
it must reverently be licked up ; if a mouse run away with a crumb 
of the bread, the whole church is in commotion ; “ if a Priest vomit 
the Eucharist he must swallow it again.” Such being the difference 
of usage, and such the clear testimonies of the Fathers, let me once 
more refer their opinions to your re-consideration. 

3. Under the head in which you attempt to meet my objections to 
Transubstantiation, “ as contrary to reason and contradictory to the 
senses,’.’ I know not whether you are most feeble or most prolix. 
Your parallel between Professor Norton’s objections to the Trinity, 
and mine to the real presence, is only remarkable for this, that you 
seem to prefer the sacrifice of .the Trinity to the surrender of Tran- 
substantiation. It is surely a most profane parallel. But the con- 
trast Detween the Trinity and Transubstantiation, is perfect in all its 


CONTROVERSY, 


398 " 

parts. 1. There is not a word of Scripture for the real presence : 
whereas it is redundant in favour of the Trinity. 2. Transubstan- 
tiation is contrary to reason and contradictory to the senses : where- 
as the Trinity does not the least violence to either. I would ask you 
if the doctrine of the Trinity does contradict the senses?. Your 
whole argument then, as derived from the Unitarian is this — the Uni- 
tarian says the Trinity is contrary to reason, which Mr. Hughes 
does not believe ; therefore Transubstantiation is not contrary to rea- 
son and the senses. A noble syllogism truly ! Is it impossible for 
your false doctrine to contradict reason and the senses, because a 
Unitarian says a true doctrine does ? In reference to Hume I still 
insist, that if Transubstantiation be true he cannot be confuted. You 
seem not to understand his system. He found prepared to his hand 
a false philosophy, which in violation of common sense denied first 
principles. Previous philosophers had denied the existence of mat- 
ter. And who can prove it ? It is self-evident; nothing is clearer 
to prove it by ; we look to the senses for the proof of it. Proceed- 
ing on the same false principle, he denied the existence of spirit. If 
you grant his principle, it is impossible to answer his arguments. 
Now as his error started with the absurdity of contradicting the 
senses, and rejecting their testimony about the existence of matter, 
so Transubstantiation, in the same way contradicts the senses by 
saying that bread ceases to be bread, and has only the appearance of 
bread, when all our senses tell us it is still bread. We prove it to 
be bread as we prove the existence of all matter, on the testimony 
of the senses. We feel it, we taste, we smell it, we see it, that it is 
very bread, after all your consecrations ; and the moment that you 
admit that it is not bread , Hume steps in, and on the same proof, may 
deny the existence of all matter. Whoever, therefore, takes your 
ground, if a thinking and consistent man, must launch into the wide 
sea of universal scepticism. Hence it has happened, as in Spain 
and South America at this day, that multitudes of your priests are 
infidels , as well as men of pleasure, in the worse sense of the terms ; 
for your doctrines lead to it. And hence too the mass of your peo- 
ple are as superstitious as the Hindoos themselves ; their confused 
views of the body of Christ are transferred to all things around them ; 
and wizzards, and witches, and saints, and angels, and devils possess 
all objects, and people the creation ; and holy water, and amulets, 
and relics, and images, and crosses, and beads, and agnus Dei’s, and 
exorcisms abound ; and they must have something around the neck, 
or in the bosom, at all times, to save them from devils, witches, 
fevers, fires, shipwrecks, &c. &c. Here I cannot but remark on the 
shocking way in which you express your ideas of the incarnation of 
the Son of God. You speak of “ omnipotence, omniscience, and 
omnipresence, wrapt in swaddling clothes “ the artificer of the 
universe turned carpenter “ the eternal God subjected to the mean- 
ness of hunger and thirst and you adopt this as your creed by 
saying, “ all this you must believe, if you believe the divinity of 
Jesus Christ.” No Sir, I do not believe one word of it, and it is an 
insult to the God of heaven to connect such expressions with his au- 
gust nature. I believe that the man Christ Jesus was thus exposed. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


399 


and that the eternal God was and is united to the man Christ Jesus ; 
but that God could not be born or suffer, or die any more than “ his 
divinity, together with the soul and body of Jesus Christ,” could be 
called into a piece of bread by the incantations of a priest, and then 
be eaten by the mouths of men. Again, even allowing that the body 
of Christ was really and carnally present in the Eucharist, it would 
still be gross idolatry to worship it. For I would ask, what is the 
proper object of divine worship but the divine attributes and perfec- 
tions ? To worship the body of Christ alone, is idolatry, as much 
as to worship a stock, or stone, or any mere creature. We worship 
Christ as God: but you worship ihefiesh (as you call it) of Jesus 
Christ. Is this not downright idolatry ? For you do not merely 
adore God in the communion, but you “ elevate the host,” i. e. the 
consecrated wafer, (not God, for you cannot handle and elevate an 
infinite spirit) and you “ adore” what you elevate. So that even if 
it be Christ’s body, you are guilty of gross idolatry ; and if it be not, 
of course, it is idolatry ; so that taken either, or any way, to wor- 
ship it is idolatry. Your ideas of matter are surely of the most extra- 
ordinary kind, and as dangerous to Christianity as they are absurd in 
themselves. The truth of Christianity was suspended by its author, 
on his resurrection from the dead. Now if his body did rise, it was 
and is a body still ; and though refined , not a spirit , for Christ said, 
“ handle me and see , for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you 
see me have.” Luke xxiv. 39. And yet you venture to say “ his 
body can be in two places at once ; and if in two , so in a million of 
places, and yet be at the right hand. His body is spiritual: that is, 
endowed with the properties of a spirit.” Let Augustine (Epist. 
57. ad Dardan) answer you. “ Take places away from bodies, and 
the bodies shall be no where: because they shall be no where, they 
shall not be at alL ” He thought that an omnipresent body , was no 
body. A body present in a million of places at the same time ! Is 
not this a precise equivalent to the Eutychean heresy which denied 
that Christ had a body at all? “ A body endowed with the proper- 
ties of a spirit !” Is not this absurd ? Is.it not to say that it is not 
a body, for the properties of a spirit, make a spirit : and a body' is 
that which has not the properties of a spirit. Do you not then in 
fact take the ground of the Swedenborgians, and Shaking Quakers, 
and deny the bodily resurrection of Christ, making it all spiritual P 
You most strangely appeal to John xx. 19. “ When the doors were 
shut, where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, Jesus 
came and stood in the midst.” This you apply to prove, that as 
Christ must have come through the door, or the wall, therefore the 
body of Christ existed in the same space which was occupied by the 
closed door or wall. Surely you will not call this infallible inter- 
pretation. Do you forget that Christ had power to open the door 
by miracle, as the prison doors, shortly after this were opened and 
shut again by the angel of God, who liberated the apostles without 
disturbing the keepers ? Acts v. 19. Do you forget that Christ had 
power miraculously to open a passage for his body through the door 
or wall, and close it again ? Do you forget that matter having all 
the properties of matter, may be transmitted through other matter 


400 


CONTROVERSY. 


and yet neither occupy the place of the other, as light passing 
through a pane of glass ? You adduce Christ’s appearing to Paul 
on his way to Damascus, as a proof that his body was in two places 
at the same time. Christ also appeared to Stephen, Acts vii. 50, 
who said “ behold I see the heavens opened and the Son of man 
standing on the right hand of God.” Pray tell me where is the 
right hand of God ? Have you any proof that- Christ was not at his 
right hand when he was seen by Paul ? Until you make this appear, 
your reasoning upon the passage is but a begging of the question we 
are discussing. I observe in all your remarks about. our ignorance of 
space and time abstracted from the natural relation of bodies, you 
exclude the bread. Now the bread in our hands is certainly in its 
natural relation, both as to time and space ; and whatever we do 
not know, this we do know, that it is bread, possessing all the pro- 
perties of bread, after as well as before consecration ; and as such, 
we handle, and break, and eat it ; and being such, it is not the body 
of Christ. This we know. You attempt in vain to meet my ex- 
posure of your illustration, drawn from the descent of the Holy 
Ghost upon Jesus Christ at his baptism. I ask, was the Holy Ghost 
ever incarnate, or is he now? And can you then still insist that the 
case is parallel; or that the visible manifestation of Deity is the same 
thing, or a similar thing to the Transubstantiation of bread into a hu- 
man body, a human soul, and the Divinity, yet retaining every ap- 
pearance of bread ? 

4. Y^our remarks on the doctrine of intention ; on the early si- 
lence of Jews, Pagans, and apostate Christians, about Transubstan- 
tiation ; on. the Eucharist as a miracle, and yet no miracle, since 
all miracles are palpable to the senses ; are mere evasions, and call 
for no reply. My arguments on these topics stand just where they did, 
except that your failure to meet them shows their strength. As to 
the ancient Liturgies, I am prepared to meet you on that question 
when you please. I would only here ask you, whether the Mass 
used in your church is not altered so as to differ materially from 
the ancient Liturgy on the subject of the real presence.? If you 
deny it, I will prove it. 

III. Having now, as I suppose, effectually disposed of Transub- 
stantiation, I proceed briefly to expose the sacrifice of the Mass, 
which you attempt to defend in Letter No. XXIX. This doctrine is 
the legitimate offspring of Transubstantiation, as we have already 
remarked, and of course falls with it. But it is worthy of a sepa- 
rate notice, especially as you own that it is the chief business of 
your clergy to offer up this sacrifice. The doctrine of your church 
is, “ that the same Christ who once offered himself by his blood, 
on the altar of the cross, is contained in this divine sacrifice, which 
is celebrated in the Mass, and offered without blood ; and the holy 
Council (of Trent) teaches that this is really propitiatory, and made 
by Christ himself “ the victim and the Priest are the same 
Christ our Lord:” “in the Mass there is offered to God, a true, pro- 
per, propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead.” (See Coun- 
cil of Trent, 1st and 2d chapters on the Mass ; the Catechism on 
the Eucharist, and Creed of Pius IV. ; also in Letter No. XXIV.) 


401 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

Against this “ blasphemous fable,” as it is called in the articles of the 
Church of England, we have already (See Letter No. XXIV.) said 
much which you have left unanswered. We now add: 1. This is 
properly no sacrifice, because every real sacrifice supposes the death 
of the victim, and also its oblation to God. But the Council of 
Trent confesses as quoted above, that it is an unbloody sacrifice ; 
and the Apostle Paul tells us, Heb. ix. 22. “ that without shedding of 
blood is no remission.” It follows therefore that it is no sacrifice, 
and especially not propitiatory , though the Council calls it so. Your 
standards confess that there is no destruction of life in the sacrifice 
of the Mass. The bread is destroyed, but bread cannot be a victim. 
How then can you call it a sacrifice 7 Again, there is no. oblation; 
for there can be no offering up of Christ, if Transubstantiation be 
false ; and we have abundantly proved that it is. 2. If the mass be 
a true sacrifice, then Christ did at the last Supper offer up his body 
and blood as a true propitiatory sacrifice, to God before he offered 
himself on the cross. You acknowledge that you offer in the Mass 
what Christ offered in the Supper; then if the Mass be a true sa- 
crifice, Christ must have offered himself as a sacrifice to God in the 
Supper before he suffered on the cross. Of course Christ laid down 
his life before his death ; that is, he offered himself twice , which is 
an absurdity. But it is clear that Christ did not shed his blood at 
the Supper , and without shedding of blood there is no proper sacri- 
fice. The Mass therefore, cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice. 3. 
We are expressly told in Hebrews that Christ made but one propitia- 
tory sacrifice of himself to God. Thus it is written, Heb. x. 11-14. 
“ Every Priest, (Jewish) standeth daily ministering and offering of- 
tentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sins : but 
this man (Christ) after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever 
sat down on the right hand of God ; for by one offering he hath per- 
fected forever them that are sanctified.” And again, verse 10; “ we 
are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once.” Here 
there is a definite statement that Christ was offered but once ; yet in 
your Church, by the sacrifice of the Mass you profess to offer him 
daily , and in different parts of the world, millions of times every 
year. The churches in Madrid, alone in about one century, offered 
Christ 558, 921 times, at the price of £ 1,720, 437, for relieving from 
Purgatory, 1,030,395 souls ! ! Truly this is changing the temple of 
God into a house of merchandise ; and this at last is the secret 
magic of the Mass. But the word of God makes not the least men- 
tion of Christ’s sacrifice being offered again on earth after his death, 
or of repeating it in the Mass. So far from this we are told, Hebrews 
ix. 12. “that by his own blood Christ entered into the holy place, 
having obtained eternal redemption for us.” 4. The Apostle plain- 
ly contradicts the doctrine of the Mass when he lays down the prin- 
ciple, that if Christ be offered often he must suffer often. (Hebrews 
ix. 25, 26.) “ Nor yet that he should offer himself often , as the 
High Priest enterenth into the holy place every year with blood of 
others ; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of 
the world ; but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to 
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” If then you really offer 

3 E 


402 


CONTROVERSY. 


Christ, you renew his sufferings and repeat his death, by every sa- 
crifice of the Mass. Yet you call it an unbloody sacrifice, and deny 
that Christ really suffers ; though you say you offer the same victim 
that died upon the cross. Thus do you contradict yourselves, and do 
violence to the word of God. 5. The Mass makes an external visible 
sacrifice of a thing that is perfectly invisible ; for it is Christ’s body 
which you say is the matter of the sacrifice in the Mass ; and yet this 
matter is not seen nor perceived by any of the senses. If Christ 
had thus offered himself on the cross, who would have known it? It 
would have been the offering of a shadow and not a substance to 
God. You might just as well have an invisible Priest, and an in- 
visible altar. It is a gross absurdity. 6. It is not to this day deter- 
mined in the Church of Rome what is th e essence of this sacrifice, 
and wherein the true sacrificial act should be placed. * The subject 
is involved in inexplicable difficulties. To put this to the test, I now 
ask you to tell me in your next letter wherein they consist ? Now 
what sort of sacrifice must that be which none explain, which none 
understand, and which none can tell whether it consists in the obla- 
tion, the consecration, the breaking or eating of the elements ? 7. 

Your own mass book, though altered from the ancient Liturgy, still 
goes directly in the face of such a sacrifice as you profess to offer, in 
several of its parts ; and appears to be a strange compound of ancient 
truth, and modern errors. It is easy to make this manifest if you 
call for it. Yet this is the sacrifice by which you help souls out of 
purgatory. As if conscious that it cfould not be defended, you have 
left untouched my refutation of purgatory presented many weeks ago. 
Upon this profane and unscriptural institution have you hung the 
hopes of innumerable millions of souls. For this doctrine you bring 
no Scripture proof. Of the three passages in Genesis, Malachi, 
and Hebrews, not one has the least reference to the subject. I have 
much more to say on this subject which I now omit for want of room, 
and am prepared to show from Scripture, and antiquity, and reason, 
that this innovation, so profitable to the Priests, and so runious to 
the souls of the people, is utterly anti-Christian. IV. We come next 
to consider your defence of the Roman church for taking the cup 
from the people in the Eucharist. Your first reason is that Christ 
is present, whole and entire under each of the species of the sacra- 
ment. But the force of this depends, as you are aware, on the truth 
of Transubstantiation ; and I think that by this time the community 
are satisfied that this is a slender thread on which to suspend such 
an innovation. Our Lord must have known the nature of his sacra- 
ments as well as you do, and yet he commanded the cup to be used, 
as well as the bread. 

2. You contend that when Christ said “ drink ye all of this,” and 
“ this do in remembrance of me,” he addressed Apostles and Minis- 
ters only ; and therefore if the people are to have the cup, the people 
also are to “ consecrate and offer the sacrifice which he had just in- 
stituted.” Yet you admit below “ that in the earlier ages of the 
church the communion was administered to the laity in both kinds.” 
Then on your admission it follows, that the church in the first ages 
understood Christ to confer on the laity the right of administering the 


403 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

sacrament of the supper. But this you deny ; and of course contra- 
dict yourself ; I ask then why the early Christians gave the cup to the 
laity? But again the Council of Trent in so many words, says “ that 
it was not till the last supper that our Lord ordained the Apostles to 
be Priests of the New Testament and you say the same. I ask 
then, were the Apostles Priests when they applied “ the sacrament” 
of extreme unction to the sick ? (Mark vi. 13.) If they were, then they 
were made Priests before the last supper ; for none but Priests can 
administer sacraments. But you say they were made Priests at the 
last supper.’ If so, it follows that extreme unction was not a sacra- 
ment. But your church says it is a sacrament. Then the church 
has erred , and is infallible Yet if it be a sacrament, instituted by 
Christ, as you say, then the Apostles administered it before they were 
priests, or if you say, they were priests, before the last supper, then 
the church has erred , for she says they were not. 3. It appears then 
that the Roman church has, after all, violated an express law of 
Ohrist. For He said “ drink ye all of it,” to those to whom he said 
“take, eat;” and if you may do away the “cup,” so may the 
“bread;” and if he meant the Priests only tp have the “ cup,” he 
meant the priests only to have “ the bread,” and so there is no sa- 
crament. You own “ that in the earlier ages,” they gave the cup to 
the laity. Why ? And why alter the practice ? Is not the change 
an insult to Christ ? You say it is not “ essential” to give the cup. 
How dare you say so when Christ ordered it to be done ? And you 
his priest to administer his sacrament? Not essential! to do what 
Christ has fixed by a standing law, and in a holy sacrament ! The 
Councils of Lateran and Trent own that the cup was primitively 
received by the people ; but gravely tell us that for good and suffi- 
cient reasons the church has by law changed it ; and has added an 
anathema to him Who disputes the Church’s authority ! 

4. By this act you nullify the Lord’s Supper. You divide what 
Christ united, viz. the cup from the bread. Now as you drop one 
half, you destroy the entire institution. The Eucharist is never, 
no never, celebrated in your church. You not on\y pervert it by the 
pretended sacrifice , when it is no sacrifice, but you destroy it, by 
dropping one-half, and the more important part, if there be a differ- 
ence. And now I call on you to prove your right to do so ; and to 
show that the earliest antiquity gives to this criminal mutilation, 
nay, destruction of the Eucharist, the least countenance 

V. We come next to your stereotype questions. These have at dif- 
ferent times been answered by me already ; and I doubt not. to the 
satisfaction of every reasonable man. Your motive for their frequent 
repetition, is but too evident. The course of discussion which I 
had adopted under the general question, viz. “ Is the Protestant Re- 
ligion the Religion of Christ ,” led me in the first place to expose the 
errors and corruptions of the church of Rome. From the nature of the 
question this was the only consistent line of argument. In pursuit of 
this plan, I have exposed in a long series of unanswered arguments 
and historical facts, the false doctrines and abominations of the church 
of Rome. Instead of meeting me on this ground you have conti- 
nually been crying out for the “ question,” the “ question,” desirous, 


404 


CONTROVERSY. 


no doubt, to call me off from points which your pen could not defend, 
and whose discussion your cause could not endure. To prevent an 
endless and indeterminate controversy, I waived the points on which 
we agreed; and selected those on which we differed. On these 
disputed points the controversy between us turns. You hold these 
disputed points to be essential as a part of the religion of Christ ; 
whereas we protest against them as errors and innovations. I fully 
stated these disputed tenets in my definition of the Protestant Reli- 
gion in letter No. XX. ; and since that time have been engaged in 
confuting the chief part of them. To illustrate this ; we agree that 
Christ is the head of the church ; but you add the supremacy of the 
Pope. I have shown his supremacy to be a anti-christian usurpa- 
tion. When this Papal excresence is cut off, the Christian, Protes- 
tant headship of Christ remains. We agree that the Bible is a 
rule of faith ; but you add to it the apochryphal books, unwritten 
tradition, an infallible interpreter, and the unanimous consent of the 
Fathers. I exposed your additions, and showed that they are un- 
christian novelties. The Christian, Protestant Rule of Faith remains. 
We agree that God is the proper object of religious worship; but 
you add to this, gross idolatry, in the worship of the cross, the 
consecrated bread, the Virgin Mary, angels, saints, pictures, 
relics, and images. I exposed this idolatry ; the Christian, pure, 
Protestant worship of God alone remains. We agree that Christ in- 
stituted the two sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist ; but you 
corrupt these two, and add Jive more. I have exposed these your 
corruptions and additions ; the Christian, Protestant sacraments re- 
main ; and so of the other points of difference, whether it be of 
your additions to , or subtraction from , the Religion of Christ. 
At every step, therefore, in this discussion, (besides my direct re- 
plies, at the close of several of my letters,) I have been answering 
your interrogatories by assailing and confuting those doctrines of 
your church against which we protest. 

But to be more particular. You ask, 1. “ TVhat is the Protestant 
religion .” Answer. It is the religion of the Reformation, in con- 
tradistinction from the Roman Catholic religion, as it concerns doc- 
trine, and morality, government, discipline, and worship. It is the 
religion which is exclusively derived from, and consistent with, the 
Holy Scriptures as the only infallible Rule of Faith and practice : 
and which protests against the errors and corruptions of the church 
of Rome. After all your vain cavils, this definition is clear, minute, 
and just. You object that Deists protest (see Letter No. 23,) 
against the Roman Catholic Religion. True ; but I defined the points 
on which we protest ; and they, in important respects, differ from 
the protests of Deists ; for Deists protest against those points in 
which we differ from you; and Deists protest also against those 
points in which we agree with you. You object again to the de- 
finition “that our religion is derived exclusively from the Holy 
Scriptures, because we derive it by private interpretation.” But how 
else shall we derive it ? I have fully proved that your infallibility 
is a figment, that your rule of fatith is a failure and a fraud; that 
the right use of reason, under the guidance of God, is the only 


405 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION; &c. 

way ; and that as to abuses, your forcing the sense of Scripture and 
the conscience of men, have led to greater abuses than private inter- 
pretation ever did, with this difference against you, that if men 
abuse private interpretation, that is not the fault of our rule , or our 
method of using it ; whereas, your enormous abuses of the Bible 
are by authority , and your church must answer to God for all the 
violence she has done to conscience, reason, and his holy word. 
Once more, you object to the definition, that “ our religion is con- 
sistent with the Holy Scriptures,” and say that “ every sect claims 
the same for its notions.” It*is true ; but are claims facts ? Do false 
claims destroy true ones ? False prophets claimed inspiration; does 
that destroy the evidence of Paul’s inspiration ? False Christs arose ; 
does that falsify the true Christ? The truth of a definition depends 
upon the proof of a conformity between the thing defined and the 
terms ; and I have proved the justness of my definition in the pro- 
gress of this discussion. If heretical sects do claim conformity to 
the Bible, they pay more respect to it than the church of Rome 
does, for she professedly violates Bible law by taking the cup from the 
laity in the Eucharist; by using prayers in an unknown tongue ; by 
forbidding priests to marry ; by making a sacrament of extreme unc- 
tion, &c. 

2d Question. “ I call upon you to say, what society of Christians ever taught 
this pretended ‘ Religion of Christ’ previous to the Reformation 1” This question 
was answered at large in Letters No. XX. and XXIV. I answer that the name 
Protestant is, new, but not the religion. The name Roman Catholic is also new, 
as well as absurd. Neither name is found in the Apostles’ creed, or any early 
creed ; and the Roman church was not even called Catholic for ages after the 
Apostles’ days. Protestant is a new name for the old religion of Christ, which 
was given to those who protested, at the Reformation, against the corruptions 
of that religion by the church of Rome. Every society of Christians on earth 
from the days of the Apostles to the Council of Nice, held the doctrines of the 
Protestant Religion ! All the churches founded by the Apostles (including Rome) 
beginning at Jerusalem, in Asia, Africa, and Europe, held essentially, the doctrines 
of the Protestant church until the Council of Nice ; as may be seen by compar- 
ing the formularies issued by the Reformers wuth the Apostles’ creed; the 
Athanasian creed ; the Nicene creed, and the writings at large of the Ante-Nicene 
Fathers. In order to test this, will you be so good as to take up these formularies 
and compare them, first with these monuments of antiquity, and secondly, with 
the word of God 1 After Arius arose, the church by degrees became corrupted 
with his heresy ; and finally Liberius the Bishop (Pope) of Rome, signed 
the Arian creed; several Councils adopted Arianism ; and finally, as Hilary 
informs us, Arianism was spread throughout the whole world. Still a remnant 
was left according to the faithful promise of Christ to his church, which pro- 
fessed the true religion ; and from age to age, till the glorious Reformation in the 
sixteenth century, the doctrines of the Protestant church, though persecuted by 
the church of Rome, were cherished [as I have shown in previous letters] by 
faithful witnesses to the truth. The Syrian Christians to whom I have often 
in vain invited your attention, who were never connected with or subject to the 
church of Rome, who reject your canon of Scripture ; who were condemned by 
your Archbishop for holding Protestant doctrines, and who derived from Apos- 
tolical days their Bible and their creeds, are a living monument to the Christiani- 
ty of Protestantism, and to the innovation and corruptions of the church of Rome. 
It is also notorious, that the Christian churches in England and Ireland, held 
the Protestant doctrines in their essential purity, before and when the first emis- 
saries of the church of Rome, invaded them, and began to proselyte them to 
the Roman Hierarchy. 


406 


CONTROVERSY. 


Question 3d. “ I call upon you to say, whether Christ revealed all the doc* 
trines of the Protestant Religion, beginning with the best image of your Church, 
Episcopalianism, and terminating with the most consistent of Protestant sects, 
the Unitarians ? and if not, how many denominations out of the whole, belong 
to the true Protestant Religion, the Religion of Christ 1” 

Answer. In your Letter No. XXIII. you make the following acknowledgment, 
viz : “ touching what are called ‘ Orthodox’ tenets among Protestants, I have to 
observe that they are all found in the Catholic Church. These doctrines always 
existed in the Church ; and the Reformers in going out from the Church, car- 
ried them forth.” Now, we agree with you, that some who call themselves Pro- 
testants are not Orthodox in their faith ; and you agree with us that there 
are 1 orthodox’ Protestants. I refer you again (as in Letter 26) to the For- 
mularies which were drawn up and published by the Reformed church in the 
16th century. There were no less than 12 of these, viz. the Augustan, Tetra- 
politan, Polish, Saxon, Bohemian, Wittemberg, Palatine, Helvetic, French, 
Dutch, English, and Scotch Confessions. These doctrinal standards exhibited the 
Christian Theology and unity of the flower of Europe as to its character , and 
of half its population as to number. They were issued as by one simultaneous 
movement; they agreed essentially with each other; and with one consent 
threw off the despotism, and corrupt doctrines of the church of Rome. Protes- 
tantism pervaded Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Prussia, Germany, Tran- 
sylvania, Hungary, Switzerland, France, Holland, England, Ireland, Scotland; 
and soon reached the continents of Asia, Africa, and America. That there have 
been and are many sects calling themselves Protestants, whose doctrines are he- 
retical, who are not Protestants, and with whom we cannot symbolize, Evangelical 
Protestants are as free to admit as yourself, and cease not to deplore it. But 
this is not peculiar to Protestantism. No church has so abounded with sects as 
the church of Rome ; and not an error has arisen in the Protestant church, which 
finds not its parentage or its likeness in your church. You have this great 
advantage over us, that by the Inquisition, or the stake, or a crusade, or some tre- 
mendous interdict, you compel uniformity ; but our people are subject to no such 
bodily pains and penalties , and persecutions, and stakes. And this also, that the 
capricious and polluted bosom of -the church of Rome can contain all sorts of 
wickedness, and can tolerate all sorts of irregularities if her peculiar dogmas 
and dominion are but recognized. Thus her Priests, as in South America and 
Spain, may spend the afternoon of the Lord’s day in the cock-pit or at the gam- 
bling-table, if they only say mass in the morning; and the convenient morality of 
the Jesuits can cover and excuse any sin, even fornication, or murder, so that the 
Pope.be acknowledged, and Protestants abhorred. Now we cannot do so, and 
hence we often are to called divide from us, for errors, or immoralities, those who 
give rise to some neiv but small sect. Yet after all, the different denominations 
of Protestant Christians, as Episcopalians, Baptists, Congregationalists, Method- 
ists, Moravians, and Presbyterians, agree far more nearly with each other than the 
various sects now existing (as I shall prove in my next letter) in the church of 
Rome. But if the Reformed church is made responsible for the many heresies 
and sects with which you charge her, I ask who is responsible for the many here- 
sies and sects which arose in the church of Rome at the Reformation ? Why did 
half the population of Europe forsake the church of Rome and break into various 
sects'? You say the fault was in those who broke off. Why then is it not the 
fault of those who break off from the Protestant church? You affirm that these 
sects and heresies in the Protestant church are produced by our Rule of Faith. 
Then, query, if your rule of faith be so perfect, why did so many sects and here- 
sies arise in your bosom ? Such are the inconsistencies and absurdities involved 
in your system. 

The 4th and 5th questions regard Protestant ordination. Want of room com- 
pels me to delay an answer till the next letter, in which, Providence permit- 
ting, I will give one at large. I observe that you have omitted a 6th ques- 
tion, once numbered in the series, touching the character of the Reformers, in 
these words, “Take the Reformers as they have been described by themselves, 
is it clear that they were the men whom God would have selected to purify the 


407 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

church 1” This question was returned upon you in the wicked lives of the Popes 
with such effect, that you voluntarily withdrew it from the list of your auxiliaries. 

But I must, before I close, notice your answers to my questions. 1. You say 
that “ Pope Liberius did not sign the Arian creed in the Arian seme or meaning.” 
This is a mere evasion. I ask in -what sense did he sign it? 2. What councils 
does your church recognize, and by what rules is she guided, if she reject the 
Councils of Sermium, Ariminum, &c. ? 3. I repeat the question concerning 

“ the intention of Popes, Bishops, and Priests supposing they do. as .they 
may, lack intention, are their acts valid ? It is not true that “ they have no motive 
to withhold intention.” Your answers to the remaining questions are highly im- 
portant, and shall be exposed in my next. Let me here remark, that your ap- 
probation of the Inquisition, your high tribute to the Jesuits, and your shunning 
an answer on the freedom of the Press, are approaches to the true spirit of Popery, 
at which I hope our readers will distinctly look ; and from which the most im- 
portant results are promised. Allow me to add the following questions to those 
which you have left unanswered in your last. Is there any evidence of the 
Pope’s Supremacy before the Council of Nice! Were the Apostles Priests 
when they administered Extreme Unction, Mark Vi. 13. Has the Pope a right to 
put a kingdom under interdict, or to depose a monarch or chief magistrate 1 Did 
the second Council of Pisa .decree a reformation in faith or not ?. Did the 
Council of Lateran in 1215 pass an anathema against those rulers who should 
tax Ecclesiastics ? Is not the second commandment dropped from the Catechism 
which are in common use in your Church in Europe and in America ? Have not 
“ The Fathers” been altered and pruned by authority in your church ? Are the 
Missal and the Breviary authorized and standard works ? When you have an- 
swered these, we shall have additional light on the policy and principles of the 
Roman Church. I remain, Yours, &c. 

John Breckinridge. 

P. S. Last Thursday morning, Mr. Hughes, according to his promise deposited 
his copy of Baronins in the Athenaeum, for the inspection of the public, accompa- 
nied with a paper, of which the following is a correct copy. My copy of Baro- 
nius, which is page for page the same as his, was laid beside it. As no notice 
was published in the daily papers of the fact, or the reason of it, it attracted, I be 
lieve, very little notice. I have too much reason to think that this was exactly 
what Mr. H. wished. 

MR. HUGHES’ NOTES. 

“ Theodora . — Baronius tells us, paragraph 6, that she was the mistress of Al- 
bertus Marquis of Tuscany, who at that time could tyrannize over Rome by 
means of the Fort of St. Angelo, of which he was master. Consequently, he 
could expel lawful Popes and put in usurpers, just as his mistress directed. 
Was it fair in Mr. B. to suppress this I 
“ Sergius. — Baronius tells us that the monster Sergius was a usurper, and was 
sustained in his usurpations by said Alberlus. And moreover, that all the scam 
dais referred to, were by these creatures of a tyrant. “ Perpetrata sunt ista ab 
invasoribus et intrusis! ! verum legitime creati Romani Pontifices ista vehemen- 
ter sunt execrati.” § 3. Was it fair then to suppress this 1 

“ Apostate Popes and not Apostolical .” — Baronius says this in reference to 
the illegitimate and tyrannical manner in which they had been thrust into the 
place of the lawful Popes. Was it fair to suppress this? 

“ Baronius tells us the church was “disgraced” (infamari) by strumpets. Mr. 
Breckinridge translates it “ governed” by strumpets. Is this fair ? • * 

“ Baronius occupies the whole of the seventh paragraph to prove how manifest- 
ly the providence of God appears in the preservation oi his church in those days 
of tyranny, ^candal, and disorder. He argues that it would have been rent asun- 
der, “ had not God with his supreme watchfulness preserved its safety and integri- 
ty,” “ nisi I)eus ejus incolumitati et integritati summa vigilantia prospexisset .” 
He says it was the invisible hand of God -which sustained the Church, and that 
nothing else could sustain it under the shocking scandals of those wicked tyrants 
and intruders which he had just described. 


408 


CONTROVERSY. 


“ Does not Mr. Breckinridge, then, assert what is untrue in making Baronius 
say that the church was orgotten by God? Did he ever see the original 1 

N. B. The Italian copy is but an abridgment.” 

As this appears to be a proper occasion to dispose of this matter, I must trespass 
a little longer on the patience of my readers by submitting the following answer 
to the above notes. 

In my last letter I answered as follows ; 

1st. “That Theodora, a courtezan of noble family, obtained supreme control 
in Rome.” 


PROOF. 


Hast thou heard of the most deplora- 
ble state of this time, when Theodora 
the elder, a noble courtezan, obtained (so 
to speak) suoreme control in the city 1 


Baronius unfortunately is too ex- 


Baronius, Vol. X. p. 766. § 5. Au- 
disti temporis hujus deploratissimum 
statum, cum Theodora senior nobille 
scortum monarchiam (ut ita dicam) ob- 
tineret in urbe 1 

Mr. H. leaves this assertion untouched, 
plicit. 

2d. “That she expelled the lawful Popes and put violent and nefarious men 
into the Papal chair.” 

PROOF. 

Baronius, ibid. § 6. Exquibus tanta- By which means these courtezans ac- 
rum invaluit meretricum imperium ut quired such power that at their pleasure 
pro arbitrio legitime creatos dimoverent they expelled the lawfully constituted 
pontifices et violentos ac nefarios liomi- popes, and put violent and nefarious 
nes illis pulsis intruderent. men into their place. 

Mr. H. says that “ Albertus could expel lawful Popes, and put in usurpers, 
just as his mistress directed .” (This mistress was Marozia, one of the noble 
daughters of the noble Theodora.) Here we agree. Popes have been deposed, 
and others appointed at the direction of a courtezan. I would like to know whether 
these facts are stated in the Italian translation of Baronius, which Mr. H. pro- 
mised to deposit at the Athenaeum, for the inspection of the public, but which he 
withheld, on the ground of its being only an abridgment ? It might have scan- 
dalized the devout Italians to read such things about their Holy Mother. 

3d. “That Pope Sergius III. committed adultery with her (Theodora’s) daugh- 
ter, and their son John, the offspring of their crimes was afterwards Pope himself.” 

PROOF. 


Luitprandus, quoted byBaronius, ibid. 
§ 5. Harum una Marozia ex Papa Ser- 
gio Ioannem qui sanctae Romanae 

Ecclesiae obtinuit, dignitatem nefario ge- 
nuit adulteno. Joannes undecimus ex 
Marozia scorto Sergii Pseudopap® filius 
papa creatur. See Index to Vol. X. 
Uncontradicted for a good reason. 


One of these daughters, Marozia, by 
a shocking adultery, had a son John by 
Pope Sergius, who afterwards obtained 
the dignity of the Holy Roman Church. 
John XI. son of the pretended Pope 
Sergius, by Marozia a courtezan, is made 
Pope. 

But Mr. Hughes says Sergius was an 


usurper. I grant it, and so were all his predecessors and successors. But I would 
ask, did not this usurper hold the Papal chair at least three years? Were not he 
and his bastard son John XI. who was likewise an “ usurper,” acknowledged by 
the Catholic church as its only visible head ? Did they not perform the func- 
tions of Pontiffs in consecrating Bishops, &c .1 If they were not true Popes, then 
the line of succession was broken, and all the consecrations and episcopal acts per- 
formed by them were null and void. How does Mr. H. know that he himself has 
not received his ghostly authority from this tainted source ? 

4th. “He (Baronius) says they were Apostate Popes, and not Apostolical.” 

PROOF. 

Baronius ibid. § 4. Cumtamen eosdem Whereas in the judgment of sound 
sedis Apostolic® invasores non Apos- ecclesiastical discipline sucfl invaders of 


tolicos sed apostaticos esse dicendos, Ec- 
clesiastica benedisposita censuit disci- 
pline. 


the Apostolical See should be called not 
apostolical but Apostate. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


409 


Not denied by Mr. H. I have not suppressed a word of the passage or context 
here. See assertion second. 

5th. “Calls the times deplorable.” See 1st. 

Admitted by Mr. H. by “ expressive silence.” 

6th. “ And the scandal overwhelming, says the church was governed by strum- 
pets and forgotten by God.” 


PROOF. 


Baronius ibid. § 7. Quis ista conside- 
rans non obstupesccns, scandalumqua 
patiens putarit, Deum oblitum Ecclesise 
suae, quam meretricum arbitrio permise- 
rit infamari ? 


Who in view of these things would 
not be amazed and shocked, and think 
that God had forgotten his church, which 
he had thus given up to the infamy of 
being governed by strumpets'? 


Baronius says that the Church was disgraced by the government of strum- 
pets, (infamari arbitrio meretricum.) And here I cannot but admire the courage 
of Mr. H. in asserting under his hand that I had translated infamari governed. 
Did he not know, or did he think that the intelligent gentlemen who visit the 
Athenseum would not discover that Baronius uses the word arbitrio, “ will, plea- 
sure, rule, power. ” See Ainsworth. “ Did he ever see the original?” Alas, for 
the cause that needs such a subterfuge ! It is not only once or twice that Baro- 
nius makes the same assertion. On page 779. § viii. he says, quae tunc facies 
sanctae Ecclesiae Romance ? Quam foedissima, cum Romae dominarentur potentis- 
simae aeque ac sor didissimae meretrices? Quarum arbitrio, &c. “ What was 

then the aspect of the Holy Roman Church ? How foul, when courtezans at once 
the most powerful and most sordid, governed Rome ?” 

With respect to the assertion “ that God had forgotten his church/’ Baronius 
acknowledges that it would be a rational conclusion in any one who would con- 
sider these things. But with much Jesuitical ingenuity he goes on to show from 
the fact that no schism nor heresy occurred in the church, in consequence of these 
scandalous corruptions, that this is the true church of God ! A more palpable 
sophism was never conceived. It only proves that it was * like priest, like people * 
For if there had been any virtue in the community, a church which had thus 
forsaken God, and been forsaken by him, would have become “ a bye-word and 
a hissing.” Moreover Maronius, speaking of the Pontificate of John X. another 
usurper” who obtained the chair by the influence of his paramour Theodora, 
and held it sixteen years, says “ Dormiabet tunc plane alto (ut apparet) so pore 
Christus in navi.” “ Surely Christ was then sound asleep in the ship, as is evi- 
dent.” Do not'these expressions warrant the assertion that Baronius said “ God 
had forgotten his church?” At all events Mr. H. should be the last person to 
deny that God had forgotten the Roman Catholic Church, unless it could exist 
without a head. For he tells us in his last letter that “ a false pope is no pope.” 
Baronius, whom he acknowledges to be good authority, calls John X. pseudo- 
papa, pseudopontifex ,• a false Pope. So that for sixteen years there was no 
Pope ! If the Catholic Church was the Church of God where was his care of it 
all this time ? Had he not forgotten it P J. B. , 


3 F 



i 




CONTROVERSY. No. XXXIII. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF CHRIST 1 
Philadelphia , September 13 th 9 1833. 
To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 

Rev. Sir, — Mr. Breckinridge says that “ the Protestant is the reli- 
gion of Christ 

If so, I call upon him 1st. To tell me what the Protestant religion isp 

2. I call upon him to say what society of Christians ever taught 
this pretended “ religion of Christ previous to the Refor- 
mation P 

3. / call upon him to say, whether Christ revealed all the doc- 
trines of the Protestant religion , beginning with the best 
image of his church , Episcopalianism, and terminating with 
the most consistent of Protestant sects, the Unitarians P — 
and if not , how many denominations, out of the whole, belong 
to the true Protestant religion, the religion of Christ P 

4. I call upon him to show whether the Reformers received any 
new ministerial authority, after the withdrawal of that which 
they had received from the church P 

5. I call upon him, in case no such new authority was received , 
to show that the Protestant clergy, so called , have any divine 
right to exercise the Christian ministry , more than other 
educated laymen P 

You will not be surprised that the five “ stale questions,” should 
still stand at the head of my letters, as I shall show in the sequel, 
that you have not answered any of them ; and moreover, that they 
cannot be answered to the satisfaction of any dispassionate or rea- 
sonable mind. 

With regard to the authority of Thuanus and Dupin, as Catholic 
writers, it is rejected for reasons which I have already stated ; and 
from the fact of its rejection you are at liberty to draw your inferences 
as you think proper. 

In reference to Baronius, I had simply accused you of falsifying 
the text in your quotation. I supposed then, that you did it through 
ignorance ; but the book has since been laid open to public inspec- 
tion, and you have the courage still to repeat what every scholar who 
examined the original, must acknowledge to be untrue. • 

In my postscript I shall give the translation of Baronius ; so that 
even the uneducated may see what must be your situation, when you 
first quote falsely, and being advised of it, repeat the assertion, under 
circumstances which go far, as I shall show, to prove that you must 
have known it was unfounded. 

But, Rev’d. Sir, I hope you will not be offended, if I direct your 
attention to some things in your letter, which can hardly fail to be 
regarded even by your friends, as a reprehensible want of courtesy 
on your part. . For example, when you tell me that you “are ashamed 
(perhaps not without reason) to be dragged before the public in such 
company do you forget that your controversial challenge was 
addressed to “ Priests and Bishops,” and that you condescended to 
admit my claims as a “ responsible correspondent ?” 

410. 


411 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

'Again, as regards what you call “ superstition,” you compare Ca- 
tholics with “ Hindoos.” Now the Catholics (accustomed to insult) 
can forgive you this, but Protestants themselves will say there is no 
argument in such phrases. 

Again, since you have sent your “friend to the Athenaeum,” when 
(and perhaps because) I did not expect him, it is but fair that he and 
you should have another and a better opportunity. 

Be it known , therefore , that a reward of five hundred dollars is 
hereby offered , to any friend of Mr. Breckinridge , or any other per- 
son, who shall find, in the 10th volume of the writings of Baronins , 
a certain quotation, which he, the said Mr. Breckinridge, published 
with inverted commas , in Letter No. XXX. pf the pending Contro- 
versy f and which he, the said Mr. Breckinridge, professed to have 
found in, and taken from , the said 10 th volume. If Mr. Espy, Mr. 
Parker , Teachers of I,anguages, and Mr. M'Elhenny , (all Pro- 
testants,) or any two Professors of languages in any College, in 
America, shall attest that said passage has been found, the subscriber 
hereby binds himself to pay five hundred dollars to the finder. The 
said 10 th volume of Baronius shall remain at the Athenaeum, open 
for inspection during one week after the publication of these presents. 

Now, Rev’d. Sir, let “your friend” get ready, whilst I proceed to 
notice whatever deserves to be noticed in your letter, of which, by 
the way, the continued perversions of authorities form the principal 
part. 

The case of Bellarmine you still affect not to understand. I have 
explained and vindicated it in my last letter, and to that explanation 
I refer thd reader. It is not necessary for me in every letter to ex- 
tricate my arguments and reasonings from the confusion in which it 
may suit your convenience to involve what you cannot answer or re- 
fute. Touching the “ license to commit sin,” the Protestant indul- 
gence which 1 pointed out in your “ Confession of Faith,” you have 
thought fit to be silent. It was not founded on the case of adultery ; 
but on the liberty to obtain a divorce and marry another wife or hus- 
band, in consequence of such “ wilful desertion (by the true wife or 
husband) as can in no way be remedied by the church or magis- 
trate.” Here there is no mention of “adultery” — “wilful desertion” 
is recognised as sufficient to authorise Polygamy ! ! This is pretty 
morality. Neither is it the opinion of individuals. It is the doctrine 
of the Presbyterian church proposed in her Standard of 1821. Does 
the Scripture say any thing of this case of “ wilful desertion,” and 
yet your ministers are obliged to receive the “ standard” as the sum- 
mary of the Scriptures. 

As to the intolerance of Presbyterianism, I established it by logi- 
cal demonstration in a way which bids defiance to all your gratuitous 
assertions to the contrary. As long as my arguments are unanswer- 
ed, I need not return to the subject. You say it is liberal, I have 
proved the contrary from its own standard testimony. I am content 
therefore to leave the matter as it is. 

The same observation applies to your review of my arguments on 
the Eucharist. Not a single argument of mine have you touched ; 
not a single authority have you disputed. You had appealed to 


4 12 


CONTROVERSY. 


Scripture. I showed that Scripture positively states the Catholic 
dogma, as it is believed in the church. You had appealed to the 
Fathers. I showed that all fhe Fathers of the first six hundred years 
believed and taught with the church and with the Scriptures. You 
had appealed to reason and the senses. I showed that the doctrine 
of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, like other mysteries , 
is believed by virtue of Revelation. And that having been revealed , 
it rests, not on the testimony of reason, or what you call by that 
name, but on the omnipotence and veracity of God, With God it is 
perfectly reasonable. But I have so little cause to be dissatisfied 
with your late production, that I willingly leave the matter to the 
sincere judgment of our readers. Let them compare letter with let- 
ter and see whether a single difficulty has been raised by you, not 
excepting the cleistical sophisms which you have introduced, that has 
not been answered or anticipated in the arguments of my last. 

For the information of the reader, however, I shall make a few re- 
marks by way of explanation. I have already observed, that in the 
primitive church the doctrine of the Eucharist was concealed from 
Jews, Pagans, and even Catechumens, until after their initiation by 
the sacrament of Baptism. This practice was derived from the doc- 
trine of Jesus Christ directing that holy things should not be given 
to dogs, nor perils placed before swine. (Matt. vii. 6.) 

It was derived from this practice : “ To you, he said, is given to 
know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest \x\ para- 
bles” (Luke viii. 10.) And again, “ I have many things to say to 
you, but you cannot bear them now” (John xvi. 12.) So also after 
his resurrection, “ He opened their understanding, that they might 
understand the Scripture.” (Luke xxiv. 45.) In the Acts, the cele- 
bration of. the mysteries of the Eucharist is referred to, in a way 
which indicates that it was not to be exposed to the Jews or Pagans 
“ continuing daily in the temple, and breaking bread , from house to 
house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart.” 
(ii. 46.) “ And it came to pass, whilst they were at table with him 

(after the resurrection) he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and 

gave to them and how they knew him in the breaking of bread.” 

(Luke xxiv. 30 and 35.) So in like manner St. Paul — “ And I, 
brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual, but as to carnal. As 
to little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat : for you 
were not able as yet : but neither are you now able : for you are 
yet carnal.” (1 Cor. iii. 1, 2.) Thus Justin Martyr in his “Dialogue 
with Trypho” the Jew, refers to the Eucharist as the sacrifice of 
the new law, spoken of by Malachy, of bread and wine in commem- 
oration of Christ’s passion, because the mystery of that sacrifice 
was not to be exposed to Jews. We have the testimony of Clemens 
Alex, (lib 1. Stromatum,) of Tertullian (Apol. c. 7. and lib. 2. ad 
uxorem,) of Origen (Horn. 9. in Caput. 16 Lev. No. 10.) of the Apos- 
tolical Constitutions (lib. 3. cap. 5.) of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, (Pref. 
ad. Catech. No. 12.) of St. Basil (lib. de Spir. s. c. 27. No. 66.) 
In short, of Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, St. Epiphanius, St. 
Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St.' Cyril of Alex. Theodoret, of all the 
Fathers to prove that in their discourses to mixed assemblies , while 


413 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

either Pagans, Jews, or even Catechumens were present, they spoke 
of the holy Eucharist with caution and concealment , so that whilst 
the faithful, who were initiated, knew the mystery , the knowledge of 
it should be withheld from the profane, lest being as they were car- 
nal, they should be scandalized and scoff at it, as Protestants do now. 
They said in the figurative language of our blessed Redeemer, that 
holy things were not to be given to dogs, nor perils cast before swine. 
It was on such occasions they used those ambiguous expressions, by 
which Protestant books and Protestant ministers would persuade the 
people that the Fathers did not believe the Eucharist to be flesh and 
blood of Jesus Christ. Hear St. Cyril of Jerusalem. “ We declare 
not to the Gentiles the hidden mysteries of the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost ; nor do we speak openly of the mysteries of the Cate- 
chumens : but we frequently employ obscure expressions , that they 
may be understood by those who are already instructed , and that the 
uninstructed may not be injured by them.” (Catech. vi. No. 29.) It 
is of these “ obscure expressions” that Protestants take advantage, 
when they would persuade the people that the Fathers believed in 
mere bread and wine. But I showed in my last letter the doctrine 
of the Fathers and of the primitive church, by their instructions to 
the faithful initiated , in which there was no necessity for conceal- 
ment, and in which, they consequently teach the doctrine of the real 
presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist so 
strongly and so unequivocally that no Protestant minister would dare 
to repeat their expressions in his pulpit. 

Now I maintain that this very concealment of the Eucharist from 
Pagans, Jews, and Catechumens is by itself , a powerful proof of the 
Catholic doctrine. For in the first place, if it were mere bread and 
wine, what motive could there exist to conceal it ? 2. When they 

were accused of “ murdering a child, and feasting on its flesh iii their 
assemblies,” it would have been easy and natural to refute the ca- 
lumny, and say that it was merely a little bread and wine they took 
figuratively in memory of Christ’s body and death. But this they 
never said ; even when they were tortured , as was sometimes the 
case, to force them into a confession of what it was ! 3. They would 
not have celebrated the Eucharist with doors inviolably closed, for 
even the High Priest would not be scandalized, at seeing them eat 
bread and drink wine ; though he might be, if he saw them adoring 
the flesh of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as they invariably did (see 
my last letter) before they received it. But their positive testimony, 
when speaking to the faithful alone , leaves no room to doubt on the 
subject. So much so that Zuingliiis, in reading the Fathers, acknow- 
ledges that on every page in which they referred to it, he found 
nothing but “ bread of life,” “ flesh of Christ ,” “ body and blood of 
our Lord Jes7/s Christ .” • > 4 

How well then, would it be, for Protestants and their ministers, to 
hearken to the beautiful advice of St. Chrysostom. “ Let us believe 
God in all things, and gainsay him not, although what he says ap- 
pears to be contrary to the testimony of our eyes and our reason . Let 
the authority of his ivord supersede the testimony of our eyes and 
out reason. Since, therefore, his word. said, “this is my body,” 


414 


CONTROVERSY. 


let us rest satisfied and believe , let us behold it with the eyes of faith.” 
(Horn. iv. in Joan.) 

The principal exception which you make to the arguments of my 
last letter is that, “ admitting some of the Fathers to be for the real 
presence,” I have not their unanimous consent. I answer, that I 
have. They all taught, and believed, as Catholics do. But say you, 
St. Augustine tells us, that “ when the Scripture seems to command 
a wicked thing it is to be understood figuratively .” Thus of the 
words * unless you eat the flesh,- <fcc.’ Answer. In this St. Augus- 
tine speaks not of the substance of the Eucharist-. He speaks of the 
action or manner in which the flesh of Christ was to be received. If 
the Jews understood the precept to eat , in the literal or natural sense, 
it w'ould lead to a wicked consequence, viz. tearing the flesh from 
the bones of Christ and so eating it. He points out the error of the 
Capharnaites : they understood Christ to speak of his flesh, in 
this they were right, but they imagined that it was to be eaten, in 
the gross manner of human, natural flesh, instead of the supernatural 
manner, in which it exists in the Eucharist, and he showed, that in 
the former sense “ the Scripture would seem to command a wicked 
thing,” and in so much was not to be understood literally. How you 
could have read the passage and not know this, or knowing, not men- 
tion it, I am at a loss to conceive. * But read the testimonies from 
St. Augustine in my last letter, and you will be compelled to acknow- 
ledge, in your own mind at least, that he was the believer and adorer 
of Christ’s body in the Eucharist. 

Again you quote Tertullian. But the context shows that you per- 
vert him. The scope of his passage is to show that, according to 
the Prophet Jeremiah, bread had been the ancient “ figure,” of 
Christ’s body. To prove this, he quotes the words of the institution 
to show that the figure of the prophet had received its fulfilment, add- 
ing immediately, the words which you suppress, “ figura autemnon 
fuisset, nisi Veritatis esset Corpus,” that is, “ but it (the bread) ivould 
not have been a figure, if it (the holy Eucharist) were not the body 
in truth.” Why did you mistranslate this ? 

You mention Erasmus as asserting that until the year “ 1215” the 
Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist was a disputed point. You give 
no quotation, but I shall, to show how far you have injured him by the 
assertion. “ Since the ancients,” says he, “ to whom the church, 
not without reason, gives so much authority, are all agreed in the 
belief, that the true substance of the body, and blood of Jesus Christ 
is in the Eucharist : since, in addition to all this, has been added the 
constant authority of the Synods, and so perfect an agreement of the 
Christian world , let us also agree with them in this heavenly mys- 
tery, and let us receive here below, the bread and the chalice of the 
Lord under the veil of the species , until we eat and drink them with- 
out veil in the kingdom of God. And would that those, who fol- 
lowed Beringarius in his error, would follow him in his repentance.” 
(Prcef. in Tract, de Euch.) Is this the language of a man who held 
that the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist was a disputed point till 
the year “ 1215?” We should have had another article in our rules, 
couched in something like the following terms : “ It is understood 


415 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

between the parties, that Mr. Breckinridge shall make as many un- 
founded assertions and false quotations as onfidence, without expe- 
rience , may dictate ; and that Mr. Hughes shall have nothing to do, 
but go after him and refute them.” 

In your quotation from Epiphanius (In Anciorat,) you again sup- 
press the part that goes against you. He was showing that man is 
made after the likeness of God, although the resemblance is not per- 
ceptible to the senses. This he shows by comparison with what 
appears to the senses in the Eucharist. It does not sensibly resemble 
the body of Christ. But referring in the very next sentence to the 
words of Jesus Christ in the institution of the Eucharist, he says, 
“ there is no one who does not believe them ; for he that does not 
believe it to be himself truly (ipsum verum) falls from grace and sal- 
vation. ” Why was this suppressed ? 

Did the Fathers believe that the body of Christ cannot be in two 
places at once? So says Mr. Breckinridge : but hear St. Chrysos- 
tom. ‘‘We always offer the same victim , (here is the sacrifice) not 
as in the old law, sometimes one and sometimes another : but here 
it is always the same, for which reason there is but one sacrifice : 
for if the diversity of places, in which the sacrifice is offered, mul- 
tiplied the sacrifice, • we should have to allow that there were many 
Christs. But there is but one Christ, who is entire here, and entire 
there, possessing still but one body : for which reason there is but 
one sacrifice .” (Horn, in Epist. ad Hoebr.) 

.< This language, Rev. Sir, indicates the true belief of the real pre- 
sence as it is in the church, and as it was from the beginning of Chris- 
tianity. Carlostadius, however, originated a contrary doctrine* or 
rather opinion, and Protestants go with Carlostadius. It is the be- 
lief of a mystery ; nothing greater, however, than what Protestants 
who believe the Scriptures, acknowledge respecting the presence of 
Christ’s body on the way to Damascus, or its entrance into a closed 
apartment. The latter difficulty you have solved by an explanation 
which may be original , but it is not very ingenious. “ Christ could 
remove out of the wall or door, space for his body to enter by, and 
then close it up again ! !” This of course explains the mystery. 

When you take offence at “ Omnipotence wrapped in swaddling 
clothes,” you forget that I quoted the expression from a Protestant 
sermon / 

On the couplet of Watts, 

“This infant is the Almighty God 
Come to be suckled and adored 

you make no comment. But when you come out boldly, and pro- 
claim that to adore Jesus Christ as man, “ would be gross idolatry,” 
you show the downward tendency of Protestantism. Protestants 
generally, adore Jesus Christ without distinguishing between his 
divine, and human nature, which are hypostatically and inseparably 
united in the person of Christ.. Your separation of them savours 
strongly of Nestorianism ; and I should not answer for your safety 
if you had proclaimed this “ idolatry” in Geneva, during Calvin’s 
days. All the “ Old School” Protestants have acknowledged that if 
the body of Christ be in the Eucharist, it is to be adored in it. * This 


416 


CONTROVERSY. 


is precisely the point which Beza and the first Calvinists urged against 
the Lutherans, who taught the real presence, and yet did not require 
adoration. (Beza de Coena Dom. p. 270.) (Balacus in Exam. Recit. 
p. 220.) And Chemnitius, himself a Lutheran, says : “ There is 
no one doubts but that the body of Christ is to be adored in the 
Supper, unless he who doubts or denies with the Sacramentarians 
that Christ is really present in the Supper.” (Exam. Con. Trid. 
Sess. 31. c. v.) 

Still a “ new light” has beamed on Mr. Breckinridge, and he has 
discovered that these Protestants and all who believe with us that the 
body is to be adored wherever it is, no less than his divinity, “ are 
gross idolaters.” Then the Reformers were idolaters. What will 
the Unitarians, Rev. Sir, say to all this ? Will they not begin to 
look upon you, as one of their own? Although I am persuaded that 
you are not. 

You once threatened us with the testimony of the ancient Litur- 
gies, on the subject of the Eucharist; but you have withheld them 
on second reflection, having been admonished, probably, by some 
one more correctly informed, that you were treading on dangerous 
ground. There is one, however, the Syrian Liturgy of the “ Chris- 
tians of St. Thomas,” (Protestants if we may believe Mr. B.) to 
which you invite my attention. By this I understand you to give 
up the others, and if so, you are wise. 

About the year 1500 the Portuguese having doubled the Cape of 
Good Hope, penetrated into India, and to their amazement these 
Christians of St. Thomas, were found on the coast of Malabar. 
This was reported in Europe, and gave rise to much speculation; 
but unfortunately it was made known that their faith had been cor- 
rupted by the errors of Nestorianism. They were heretics ; and the 
Reformers, who had just separated from the faith of the church and 
of the world, took it into their heads that, of course, they were Pro- 
testants. La Croze, a Protestant, wrote a treatise to maintain this 
supposition, under the title of “History of Christianity in India.” 
But Assemini (Biblioth. Orient. Tom. 4. c. 7. § 13.) refuted La 
Croze’s book, and convicted him as usual in such cases, of twelve 
or thirteen gross misrepresentations. Their errors were condemned 
by the Catholic Archbishop of Goa, but the denial of the real pre- 
sence was not among them. In their Liturgy, to which Mr. B. refers, 
are found the following words : 

“ With hearts full of respect and fear, let us all approach the mys- 
tery of the precious body and blood of our Saviour and now, O 

Lord, that thou hast called me to thy holy and pure altar, to offer 
unto thee this living and holy sacrifice , make me worthy to receive 
this gift with purity and holiness.” At the communion the Priest 
says, “ 0 Lord, my God ! I am not worthy, neither is it becoming 
that I should partake of the body and blood of propitiation , or even 
so much as touch them. But may thy word sanctify my soul and 
heal my body.” In the thanksgiving after communion, he says, 
“ strengthen my hands which are stretched out to receive the holy 

one Repair by a new life, the bodies which have just been feeding 

on thy living body God has loaded us with blessings by his liv* 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


417 


ing Son, who, for our salvation, descended from the highest heavens, 
clothed himself with our flesh, has given his. own flesh, and mixed 
his venerable blood with our blood, a mystery of propitiation.” 
(Renaudot’s Latin translation.) 

Such is the language of the Liturgy of those “Christians of St. 
Thomas,” to whom Mr. B. has referred as holding the Protestant 
doctrine of mere bread and wine ! The Catholic missionaries among 
them had nothing to correct in their belief of the real presence. And 
to show what kind of Protestants they were, it is sufficient to state 
that they believed in the remission of sins by the Priest’s absolution ; 
held three Sacraments, Baptism, Holy order, and the Eucharist ; and 
taught that in Christ there were two persons, the divine, and human : 
that the divinity dwelt in Jesus, as in a temple. Are these the doc- 
trines of Protestants ? So much for those pure and unpopish Chris- 
tians of St. Thomas and their liturgy. 

When you say that Christ commanded the cup, and that we “ nul- 
lify” the Sacrament, you must have forgotten, that in my Letter, No. 
XXIX. I gave, besides other, and better proofs, the Protestant autho- 
rity of a Presbyterian Synod in France, and an act of British Parlia- 
ment, to prove the contrary,. Read, I pray you, the arguments there 
adduced, and either answer them, or be silent. Assertions are cheap, 
and cost too little to deserve that I should repeat the same arguments 
and authorities, as often as you make them. 

In refuting your attempt to answer the “stale questions,” I shall 
have occasion to show how far the unsuspecting Protestant reader is 
liable to be led astray by your representations, 1. To. the question 
“what is the Protestant religion,” you answer as before, “it is the 
religion of the Reformation.” This is no definition, unless we know 
what the religion of the Reformation is* When you enumerate, in 
another part of your letter, the denominations that constitute “ the 
Protestant religion,” you expose the definition. For if “ Episcopa- 
lians, Lutherans, Moravians, Baptists, Methodists, Congregational- 
ists, and Presbyterians,” constitute “ the religion of Christ ; n then, 
“ the religion of Christ” should be made up of contradictions ! / 
Did Christ infuse such contradictions into his religion ? To say 
that “ it is exclusively derived from the Bible, as the only infallible 
rule of faith and practice,” is not a definition ; but an assertion, which 
remains to be proved , and the truth of which, I utterly deny . Every 
sect claims the Scripture for its notions. This you admit, and ask 
whether “ claims are facts,” — whether “ false claims destroy true 
ones ?” I answer No, and therefore “ the false claims” of the Re- 
formation, could not destroy the true claims of the Catholic church. 
She was, and had been, from the beginning of Christianity, in pos- 
session of the Scriptures and their meaning. So that turn it as you 
will, every new aspect only shows more clearly that “ the Protestant 
religion” mocks the powers of definition. What is it ? 

In reply to my second question, you say that “every society of 
Christians on earth from the days of the apostles to the Council of 
Nice, held the doctrines of the Protestant religion.” Here there is 
something tangible, and since you appeal to the test of comparison, 
between Protestant and primitive doctrines, I shall try you by it. 


418 


CONTROVERSY. 


The Ante-Nicene Fathers and ancient liturgies were all Protestant, 
you have told us. Then of course you will have no objection to 
correct your doctrines, if it should happen to be different from theirs. 
Liturgy of Jerusalem — “ We offer thee, 0 Lord, this tremendous 
and unbloody sacrifice.” “ Send down thy most holy Spirit on 
us and on these holy gifts ; that he, by his holy, kind and glorious 
presence, may make this bread the holy body of Jesus Christ .” v An- 
swer, “ Amen.” “ And this chalice the precious blood of Jesus 
Christ.” Answer, “Amen.” Is this the doctrine of our modern 
Protestants on the sacrifice of Mass ? No. They call it a “ blas- 
phemous fable.” 

The Liturgy of Constantinople. At the communion the deacon 
says, “ Father, give me the holy and precious body of our God and 
Saviour Jesus Christ.” The priest in giving it says, “ I do give thee 
the precious, holy, and most immaculate body of the Lord God, our 
Saviour Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins and eternal life.” 
The deacon then confesses his unworthiness, and concludes with 
these words, “0 Thou! who art goodness itself, forgive all my sins, 
through the intercession of thy unspotted and ever Virgin mother .” 

• Here is the intercession of saints inaddition to the sacrifice and the 
adoration , as marked in the same page.- Are these the doctrines of 
our modern Protestants ? — yet Mr. B. claimed the Liturgies ! ! The 
one just quoted from, ascribed to St. Chrysostom, is used by the 
western Greeks, Mingrellians and Georgians, by the Bulgarians, 
Russians, Muscovites, and all the Melchite Christians. 

The Alexandrian apd Coptic Liturgy, used by the Jacobite Copts 
of the east for more than 1200 years, at the oblation has : — “0 Lord 
Jesus Christ.. ..bless this bread and this chalice, which we have 
placed on the sacerdotal table : sanctify them, consecrate them, and 
change them in such manner, that this bread may become the holy 
body, and that what is mixed in the chalice, may become thy precious 
blood.” A little before the communion, the people prostrate and 
adore it. At the profession of faith, the priest says : “ This is the 
most holy body, and the pure and precious blood of Jesus Christ, 
the Son of God. This is, in truth, the body and blood of Em- 
manuel our God. Amen. I believe, I believe, l believe, and I 
confess to the last breath of life, that this is the life-giving body of 
thine only begotten Son.”. ...Is it thus that modern Protestants “ be - 
live?” This liturgy goes back 600 years before “ 1215,” and 900 
before the Reformation. It is the testimony of our adversaries — 
who*erred on other points and were cut oft’ from the church. 

The Liturgy of St. James (Syriac version,) “Bless us, 0 Lord, 
by this holy oblation, this propitiatory sacrifice,” which we offer to 
God.. ..a “ blasphemous fable,” says Mr. Breckinridge, which I 
proved by referring to the Fathers before the Council of Nice, and 
to “ the ancient Liturgies ! ! /” 

As for those “ Christians of St. Thomas,” in India, their doctrine 
on the Eucharist is the Catholic doctrine, as we have seen. But be- 
sides that, they venerated the crucifix, made the sign of the cross, 
fasted from food on certain days, and abstained from meat on 
others, celebrated festivals in honour of the blessed Virgin, and pray- 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c„ 


419 


ed for the dead. (Le Brun. Tom. III. Dis. xi. Art. 15.) They hold 
not, therefore, the doctrines of Protestantism. The learned Protes- 
tants Grotius, (votum pro pace,) and Bishop Bull, (vol. i. p. 342,) 
give up the Liturgies, as far as Protestantism is concerned, and the 
few extracts here made, show they were as correct as they were can- 
did. Still Mr. Breckinridge asserted “ that there was not one word 
of truth ” in my statement touching the ancient Liturgies. If I have 
proved the contrary, the reader will appreciate the veracity and polite- 
ness of my opponent, as they deserve. 

Let us now glance at the Protestant Fathers before the Council 
of Nice. Take for example the invocation of Saints ; and let us hear 
Origen. “ O ye saints of heaven, I beseech you with sorrowful sighs 
and tears, fall ye at the feet of the Lord of mercies for me a miserable 
sinner.” (Origen Lament.) Would Mr. Breckinridge join in pray- 
er with this (Protestant?) Father ? 

Irenaeus. “ As Eve was seduced to fly from God, so was the Vir- 
gin Mary induced to obey him, that she might become the advocate 
of her that had fallen.” (Adver. Hceres. L. V. c. 19.) 

On the subject of Tradition and the Scriptures, let us see if they 
agree with the doctrine of modern Protestants. Hear St. Clement of 
Alexandria, (second century.) “They (Heretics,) make use indeed 
of the Scriptures ; but then they use not all the sacred books ; those 
they use are corrupted; or they chiefly use ambiguous passages* 
They corrupt those truths which agree with the inspired word, and 
were delivered by the holy Apostles and teachers , opposing the di- 
vine tradition by human doctrines, that they may establish heresy. 
But it is clear from what has been said, that there is only one true 
church , which is alone ancient ; as there is but one God, and one 
Lord.” [Strom. Lib. vii. p. 891. 896. 899. Edit.Oxon. 715.] Is it 
thus that Mr. Breckinridge distinguishes heresy P 

On penance and satisfaction, what said these Protestants of Mr. 
B.? 

Tertullian addressing the sinner, “Thou hast offended God, but thou 
canst be reconciled ; thou hast a God to whom thou canst make satis- 
faction , and who desires it... Believe me the less thou spare thyself the 
more will God spare thee.” St. Cyprian against those who miti- 
gated the austerity of penance, “What do they intend by such inter- 
ference ? unless it be that Jesus Christ is less appeased by pains and 
satisfactions !” (Ep. ad Com. 55.) Is this the doctrine of mo- 
dern Protestants ? 

Did those ante-Nicene Fathers know any thing of “indulgences?” 
We are not to understand Protestant “ indulgences,” however, for 
of these they knew nothing. In the Catholic church an indulgence 
is “ the remission of canonical penance, or temporal penalty, which 
often remains due to sin after the guilt and eternal punishment 
have been remitted in the sacrament of penance.” To prove the 
exercise of such remission, by indulgence, I refer you to Tertullian, 
(Lib. de pudicit, c. 21, 22. p. 1014) to Cyprian, (Ep. 27. p. 39. and 
Ep. 29. p. 41, 42.) I refer to the Council of Ancyra, in 314, (Cone. 
Gen. L. i. Cant. v. p. 1458.) All these were before the Council of 
Nice ! 


420 


CONTROVERSY. 


Did these Fathers, whom Mr. B. has converted into Protestants, 
know any thing of Purgatory ? Hear Tertullian, directing “ Ob- 
lations for the dead on the anniversary day.” (de Coron. Milit. p. 
289.) Again, “ Reflect,” says he, to widowers , “ for whose souls 
you pray , for whom you make annual oblations .” (Exhort, ad Cast 
c. xi. p. 942.) Is it thus that our modern Protestants speak of the 
duty of praying for the dead ? 

St. Cyprian. “ Our predecessors prudently advised, that no bro- 
ther, departing this life, should nominate any churchman his execu- 
tor ; and should he do so, that no oblation should be made for him , 
nor sacrifice offered for his repose”....(Ep. 1. p. 2.) These are 
some of Mr. Breckinridge’s (supposed) Protestants before the Coun- 
cil of Nice ! ! These ‘ Protestants,’ speak of ‘ oblations ,’ then, they 
believed in the sacrifice of mass, which exists still in the Catholic 
church. They prayed for the dead : then, they believed in purgato- 
ry. Be assured, Sir, that the General Assembly would not extend 
the right hand of fellowship to those primitive witnesses of the Chris- 
tian faith. They were Catholics , and the man who says they were 
any thing else, only proves, by the assertion, that until he is better 
acquainted with ecclesiastical antiquity, it were wiser not to speak 
of them at all. This was before the Council of Nice. Tertullian 
calls the Pope in his days, the “ supreme pontiff, the Bishop of 
Bishops.” (de pudicitia cap. 1.) “ Remember, he adds elsewhere, 

that Christ gave the keys to St. Peter, and through him to the church 
(Scorp.) St. Cyprian speaks of the Pope in his day as occupying 
“ the chair of St. Peter in the head church, from which proceeds the 
unity of the Priesthood.” (Ep. 55. ad Cornelium.) How, says he 
again, can any one imagine himself to be in the church, if he forsake 
the chair of Peter, on which the church is founded. (De Unit. 
Eccl.) Now, Rev. Sir, since, as you say, all the Ante-Nicene Fa- 
thers were Protestants, it is to be hoped you will learn to speak of 
the See of Rome as they did. Tell your congregations with St. 
Cyprian, that if they forsake the “ chair of Peter,” they cannot be- 
long to the true church. 

Eusebius of Ccesarea, describing the funeral of Constantine, says, 
“ the ministers of God, surrounded by the multitude of the faithful, 
advanced into the middle space, and with prayers performed the ce- 
remonies of the divine worship. The blessed prince, reposing in his 
coffin, was extolled with many praises ; when the people, in concert 
with the Priests, not without sighs and tears, offered prayei's to 
heaven for his soul; in this manifesting the most acceptable service 
to a religious.” (De vita Constant. L. iv. c. 71. p. 667.) Is it thus 
that our modern Protestants bury their dead ? Do they pray to hea- 
ven for the soul of the deceased ? St. Ephrem of Edessa, addressing 
his brethren on the approach of his death requests them to remember 
him after his departure. “ Go along with me,” he says, “ in psalms 
and in your prayers ; and please constantly to make oblation for me. 
When the thirtieth day shall be completed, then remember me ; for 
the dead are helped by the offerings of the living .” (In Testam. T. 
iii. p. 294.) Do Protestants say this ? 

St. Cyril of Jerusalem. “ Then (he is speaking of the liturgical 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


421 


service of the church) we pray for the holy fathers and bishops that 
are dead ; and in short for all those that are departed this life in our 
communion ; believing that their souls receive very great relief by 
the prayers that are offered for them , while this holy and tremen- 
dous victim (i. e. Christ in the Eucharist) lies upon Me altar.” (Ca- 
tech. Mystag. v. n. vi. vii. p. 297.) Do Protestants hold this doc- 
trine, of prayers for the departed , round an altar , with a victim lying 
on it ? 

St. Ambrose (Serm. in Psal. clxviii. T. ii. p. 1073) St. Epi- 
phanius (Hseres. T. i. p. 911.) St. Jerome (ad Jovin ii. L. i. p. 538.) 
In a word all the fathers testify that prayer for the dead was the prac- 
tice of the Christian church, and founded on the doctrine of that mid- 
dle state of temporary suffering and purification, which is called pur- 
gatory. St. Augustine states the doctrine as distinctly as it could be 
stated by the present Bishop of Rome or of Philadelphia. “ Before 
the most severe and last judgement,” says he, “some undergo tem- 
poral punishments in this life ; some after death ; and others both now 
and then. But not all that suffer. after death, are condemned to 
eternal flames. What is not expiated in this life, to some, is remit- 
ted in the life to come,- so that they may escape eternal punishment.” 
(De Civ. Dei. L. 21. c. 13. vol. 5. p. 1432.) 

St. John Chrysostom. “ It was ordained by the Jdpostle , that, in 
celebrating the sacred mysteries , (viz. the sacrifice of mass) the dead 
should be remembered; for they well knew, what advantage would 
be thence derived to them. Will not God be propitious , when he 
looks down on the whole assembly of the people raising their hands 
up to him ; when he beholds the venerable choir of the priests, and 
the sacred victim lying on the altar” (Homil3. inEp. ad Philip. T. 
xi. p. 32.) Were these Protestants ? Then why do not Protestants 
believe as they did? 

With respect to extreme unction, St. James says : “ Is any one 
sick among you ? Let him bring in the Priests of the church, and let 
them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: 
and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man and the Lord shall 
raise him up, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him” (v. 
14, 15.) This Scripture has lost its meaning among Protestants. 
It so offended Luther that he expelled the whole Epistle from the 
canon of Scripture, calling it “ an Epistle of Straw,” and unworthy 
of an Apostle. 

The testimonies of the Fathers referring to the text for the proof and 
practice of “Extreme Unction” are equally clear and numerous. 
The text itself however is so plain, thatthose who disbelieve or per- 
vert its testimony, wouldnotbe convinced even if “one were to rise 
from the dead.” The apostles were not priests, neither was it “ex- 
treme unction” they administered in the case referred to. Mark. vi. 
13. 

Let us now see what was their doctrine on the Supremacy of the 
Pope. The faith of the Catholic Church is, that Jesus Christ invest- 
ed St. Peter with prerogatives of superiority above the other Apos- 
tles. To the twelve he imparted general powers, but to Peter spe- 
cial and personal prerogative. The language which he addressed 


4 22 


CONTROVERSY. 


to Peter was not addressed to the other Apostles, either collectively 
or individually. 

The college of the Apostles were addressed by their divine Master 
in their collective capacity, but Peter, in the singular number, and in 
language which included none besides. For proof of this, see Matth. 
xvi. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. Luke xxii. 31, 32. John xxi. 15, 16, 17. 
Did the Fathers on these passages believe as Mr. Breckinridge would 
persuade us they did ? 

But I would first ask, if Christ had not meant to impart superiori- 
ty to Peter in the external administration of his spiritual kingdom, 
the church, why address him singularly above all the rest? The 
general commission given to all would have been sufficient. 

Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Origen, the best witnesses of the faith, 
during that period of the church, in which we have your assertion 
for believing that “ all Christians were Protestants,” I mean before 
the Council of Nice, attest the superiorly* of 'Peter. Origen, com- 
menting on the words “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom 
of heaven,” says : “ This was done before the words whatsoever 

ye shall bind, &c. were, in the 18th chapter, uttered. And, truly, 
if the words of the Gospel be attentively considered, we shall there find 
that the last words were common to Peter, and the others ; but that 
the former spoken to Peter, imported distinction and superiority .” 
(Comment in Matth. Tom. xiii. p. 613.) 

I might quote innumerable other passages to show that this supe- 
riority was recognized in St. Peter and his successors in the See of 
Rome, from the Apostolic days until this hour, and that. the denial 
of its existence was, as we have just seen, incompatable with the 
communion of the church. It is true, that St. Paul withstood Peter, 
but this proves nothing except the zeal of the one and the meekness 
of the other ; the matter besides had no reference of faith, and did not 
involve any question ofisuperiority. It is true, that St. Cyprian, 
withstood Pope Stephen, on the subject of baptism administered by 
heretics ; but here again the question was not about the Pope’s supe- 
riority, which Cyprian distinctly recognized, since he advised this 
same Pope to exercise his supreme authority in correcting certain 
abuses which existed among the Bishops in Gaul. It is true, that 
in every age the Popes have received counsel, and sometimes severe 
reprehension from those who acknowledged their spiritual supremacy. 
The letters of St. Bernard to Pope Eugene, are as remarkable for 
their freedom and almost severity , as they are for the evidence that 
their author considered himself as addressing the vicar of Jesus 
Christ, and visible head of the church upon earth. 

But Mr. Breckinridge says that even one of the Popes, Gregory 
the Great, denounced John, Patriarch of Constantinople for assuming 
the title of Universal Bishop. Answer. He did, because it belonged 
to the Bishop of Rome, to Gregory himself, who in the very same 
place claimed and exercised the rights of Universal Bishop. In that 
very letter he asserts that the Bishop of Constantinople is subject to 
the See of Rome, and adds “ when Bishops commit a fault, I know 
not what Bishop is not subject to it.” 

What did those Fathers believe respecting ceremonies ? Jesus 


423 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

Christ used them, when he mixed clay and spittle and spread it on 
the eyes of the blind man. Also when he touched the ears of the 
deaf man with spittle. Both instances might furnish theme for Pro- 
testant ridicule, as well as any ceremonies used in the church. But 
let us see whether Mr. Breckinridge’s “Protestants, before the Coun- 
cil of Nice,” were averse to ceremonies, as their would-be descen- 
dants. Tertullian says, speaking of the Christians of the 2d century 
“ whenever we move ; when we enter and go out ; in dressing and 
washing ; at table, when we retire to rest, during conversation, we 
impress on our forehead the sign of the cross.” (De Corona Milit. 
c. iii. iv. p. 289.) Would it not sound odd to hear Mr. Breckinridge 
at the commencement of his next sermon saying to the people, “ My 
Brethren, let us begin like our Protestant Fathers before the Council 
of Nice, by making the sign of the cross upon our foreheads, in the 
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” He might go on to en- 
courage them by the following quotation from St. Augustine. “ It is 
not without cause that Christ would have his sign impressed on oar 
foreheads , as the seat of shame, that the Christian should not blush at 
indignities offered to his Master.” (Enar in Ps. xxx. 7. viii. p. 73.) 
What would the congregation say to this specimen of Ante-Nicene 
Protestantism ? 

Here then we have the testimony of these ('supposed,) Protestants 
before the Council of Nice as well as after, by which it appears that 
they believed as Catholics on the Eucharist , Penance , Indulgences , 
Purgatory , Prayers , and the Eucharistic sacrifice of Mass for the 
dead , the supremacy of Peter and his successors in the See of Rome, 
Ceremonies even down to the sign of the cross , which the Pagans 
ridiculed in their days, as the Protestants do in ours. 

All this proves that the second of my “ stale questions,” in which 
“ I called upon you to say what society of Christians ever taught 
this pretended “ religion of Christ, previous to the Reformation?” 
is still to be answered. You once referred to “ the Waldenses and 
the Greek church.” But I exposed the ignorance betrayed by this 
answer, so effectually, that you did not venture to repeat it. After 
some three months, you have again returned to the “stale questions,” 
and just told us that “every society of Christians on earth, from the 
days of the Apostles, to the Council of Nice, held the doctrines of 
the Protestant Religion 1 ! !” When you were determined to make 
an assertion so extraordinary, you should have adduced something 
like proof. Even “ Usher’s authority,” would have been better than 
none. But in addition to the evidence just produced, letr me ask 
did “ every society of Christians on earth,” pass into Popery at the 
time of the Council of Nice , and yet so effectually conceal the change, 
that neither themselves, nor the rest of mankind knew any thing 
about it P What ancient history mentions it ? Where did it begin p 
Who was its author P How did it spread P What fine Protestants 
they must have been, to give up the pure doctrines of Calvanism, 
without a struggle; and become Roman Catholics, without being 
conscious of the change ! ! They must have gone to bed Protestants, 
and got up Papists, having forgotten that they had ever heen any 
thing else ! ! But this is not all. How is it that in the days of their 


424 


CONTROVERSY. 


“ pure Protestantism,” they furnished such anti-protestant testimo- 
nies of their belief in all the doctrines on which the children of the 
Reformation disagree with Catholics — even to making the sign of 
the cross P an act which their would-be descendants sometimes de- 
nounce as the “ mark of the beast.” The Fathers tvere Catholics ; 
believing in the doctrines, and glorying in the Unity , Holiness , 
Catholicity , and Jipostolicity of the Catholic church. Their lan- 
guage glows with eloquence, when they pointed to these her attri- 
butes, which are exclusively peculiar to the church of Christ. The 
weapons with which they confounded heresy in their day, have been 
transmitted from century to century, in the unbroken succession of 
the ministry, and constantly been employed for the same purpose. 

But he must be very indifferent about his reputation as an ecclesi- 
astical scholar, who ventures to assert that the Fathers were Pro- 
testants, either “ before the Council of Nice,” or after. Such bold 
strokes of the pen evince too great a disproportion between a man’s 
knowledge and his zeal. They may do, however, when entrusted 
exclusively to the partial inspection of Protestant criticism. In 
writing theological epistles to Presbyterian ladies, for example, you 
may make Latin quotations, and take an extract from a Protestant 
Archbishop, as in the case of Usher, to show that Catholics are idol- 
ators, by the admissions of their own writers ! But when you con- 
descend to invite “ priests and bishops” into the field of discussion, 
the case is materially altered ; and where you assert, for instance, 
that the Fathers were Protestants, you merely give your opponent an 
occasion' to prove the contrary. This I have done, in the present 
case, to the satisfaction, I trust, of every sincere reader. So that it 
will be necessary to search again for that unheard-of society of 
Christians, that professed the doctrines of Protestantism, previous 
to the Reformation. And because no such society ever existed , the 
“ stale questions” will remain unanswered , and unanswerable to 
eternity. The consequence is, that if the Religion of Christ was 
professed in the world before the sixteenth century, it is not, and it 
cannot be, that which Protestantism in the mass , or any sect in par- 
ticular, has professed since the Reformation. 

The 3d question was that in which “ I called upon you to say 
whether Christ revealed all the doctrines of the Protestant Religion, 
beginning with Episcopalians and ending with Unitarians ?” 

To this Mr. B. opposes a remark of my own in which I admit- 
ted the existence of “ orthodox doctrines among Protestants.” But 
my remark was intended to show that for all the orthodox doctrines 
that exist among Protestants, they are indebted to the tradition or 
constant teaching of the Catholic church , and not to private inter 
pretation of the Scripture ; since Unitarian Protestants, on the con- 
trary, reject some of those doctrines, contending, with arguments, 
which Presbyterians at least, can never answer — that they are not 
contained in the sacred volume. 

This observation he converts, with much more ingenuity than in- 
genuousness, into an admission on my part, “ that there are orthodox 
Protestants.” I never said so. I merely said that there are some 
orthodox * 4 doctrines” among Protestants. Presbyterians believe in 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


425 


the Trinity; Unitarians, in the existence of God — both doctrines are 
orthodox. Yet both denominations are heterodox, the latter for de- 
nying the Divinity of Christ, the former for teaching that Christ did 
not die for all, and that God created some men under the unavoida- 
ble necessity of being damned . 

By transferring the word “orthodox,” to Protestants, instead of 
“ doctrines,” Mr. B. attempts to shake off all those Protestant de- 
nominations which he condemns as heterodox, and rallies a few sects 
under his own perversion of my words. He goes so far as to include 
“ Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Methodists, 
Moravians, and Presbyterians,” in “ the religion of Christ,” but 
here his charity seems to fail. Why he should exclude the Qua- 
kers, Swedenborgians, Universalists and Unitarians, I am, as no doubt 
they will be, utterly at a loss to conceive. Do not all these profess 
to follow the true doctrines of the Reformation, as well as Mr. Breck- 
inridge ? Are they not threading the labyrinth of Scripture by the 
same “rule of faith” as himself? Be this as it may, he has not 
enumerated them among the sects that compose the Protestant reli- 
gion, alias the religion of Christ. 

But, Rev. Sir, considering the doctrinal contradictions, by which 
even the sects you mention are divided from one another, will any 
reasonable man say that Christ could have revealed all their doc- 
trines? If Baptists are right, as you admit, must not Presbyterians 
be wrong ? Can the same Jesus Christ be the author of both doc- 
trines ? Does the same Bible teach both ? Do any two of these 
denominations teach alike on all points ? Do any two congregations 
hold identically the same doctrines ? Does not the whole amount 
to this — that every Protestant believes exactly what he pleases ? 

When you talk of “ various sects,” in the Catholic church, you 
evidently forget that a few lines before, you had acknowledged the 
contrary , and ascribed our “ uniformity” of belief to “ compulsion.” 
Now even this will not account for our uniformity in countries where 
compulsion cannot reach us. In England, Scotland, Ireland, and 
North and South America we are uniform in faith, and are increasing 
by conversions from Protestantism, so much so, that all the bigots 
of the land affect to be frightened at the rapid growth of popery. 
Do they not from the pulpit and the press endeavour to perpetuate 
prejudice and excite hatred against Catholics and their religion P 
Are we not denounced by even your Reverend self, as idolators ? And 
still we are uniform and increasing ! Is this by compulsion ? The 
unity of Catholic faith, in all ages, and throughout the world, is 
one of the marks of its Divine origin. Protestants, on the contrary, 
have never ceased to divide and sub-divide since their separation 
from the church. 

They set out with the principle that Scripture is plain. Then, it 
would be expected that all should understand it alike. But no: 
Luther and Carlostadius, and Zuinglius, and Socinus, and Calvin 
quarrelled, on the very threshold of the Reformation, about the mean- 
ing of Scripture. The battle, after three hundred years, is still going 
on among their descendants, less fiercely indeed, because the parties 
are now scattered over a larger surface of ground, and of doctrine. 

3 H 


426 


CONTROVERSY. 


The Reformers felt and foresaw all this ; and whilst they preached 
the right of private, they substituted public, interpretation of Scrip- 
ture in the form of “ Creeds and Confessions of Faith.” Yesterday 
they set at defiance the authority of the whole Christian world, and 
to-day they prescribe on a piece of parchment, what their own fol- 
lowers are to believe ! Mr. Breckinridge alludes with apparent com- 
placency to those Creeds of Protestantism, and singularly enough, 
lays considerable emphasis on their number . He says they were 
twelve. But would not one be better than twelve ? And why make 
so many ? 

There was, 1st. The Helvetian Confession, drawn up in Basle in 
1536. Amended and enlarged in 1566. Then there was, 2d. The 
Calvinistic Confession, drawn up by Beza, and presented to Charles 
IX. in 1561. Then there was, 3d. The English Calvinistic Con- 
fession, drawn up in 1562, and published under Elizabeth, in 1571. 
Then, 4th. The Creed of Scotland, by Parliament, in 1568. Then, 
5th. The Belgic Confession, 1561, approved in the Synod of 1579, 
and confirmed in that of Dort, 1619. Then, 6th. The Calvinistic 
Confession, in Poland, composed in the Synod of Czenger, in 1570. 
Then, 7th. That of the four imperial cities presented to Charles Y. 
in 1530.* In the same year was, 8th. The Augsburg Confession, 
drawn up by Melancthon. Then, 9th. The Saxon Confession at 
Wittemburg, in 1551. Then, 10th, Another in the sacred city, pre- 
sented afterwards at the Council of Trent. Then, 11th. The Con- 
fession of Frederic, published ten years after his death, in 1577. 
There were several others, all published within the short period of 
forty years. And all these for what, if the Scripture was plain, and 
every man had a right to judge of, for himself? Now it is evident 
that these confessions varied in doctrine, one from another ; other- 
wise, one would have been a model for the rest. All these confes- 
sions were by the Lutherans and Calvinists alone. But we have, 
since then, had the Westminster Confession, which was to have 
been the last ; and the reader will recollect, that when I quoted it 
some time ago, Mr. Breckinridge advised me of my mistake , and in- 
formed me, that certain “ offensive passages,” had been expunged 
out of it “ some fifty years ago.” The present standard of Presby- 
terian Orthodoxy, professes in its title page, to have been “ amended ” 
in the year 1821. How soon it will require to be amended again, no 
one can tell. But judging by the decay of old doctrines, and the 
growth of new ones, the period cannot be distant. It has run a long 
time now, nearly twelve years ! 

Such are the harmony and unchangeableness of Protestant doc- 
trine ! Can these cotemporaneous and consecutive contradictions of 
doctrine, constitute “ the Religion of Christ” even though they had 
existed previous to the Reformation ? 

Mr. Breckinridge also tells how rapidly Protestantism, “ this (sup- 
posed) religion of Christ/’ spread in Europe, Asia, (! ! !) Africa (! ! !) 
and America. As history has not made us acquainted with its tri- 
umphs either in Africa or Asia , we must be content to notice those 
which it boasts of in Europe. It is a fact, however, founded on the 
general authority of the Protestant Dr. Heylin’s History of the Re- 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


427 


formation, that Protestantism was introduced into every country in 
Europe , either by the rebellion of the subjects , or the tyranny of the 
governments. Take Heylin’s History, and the map of Europe, and 
see whether a single exception can be found. Its footsteps in every 
direction were marked with bloodshed and desolation, when it want- 
ed power , and with oppression after power had been obtained. But 
Mr. Breckinridge will say that this was owing to the persecution it 
suffered. I deny the assertion ; but even if it were true, he should 
remember that “ the Religion of Christ” waited patiently through a 
martyrdom of persecution for three hundred years, and never un- 
sheathed the sword, nor raised the arm of rebellion against its Pagan 
persecutors. 

Protestantism in its establishment, did not trust much to its own 
evidences. It did not wait to gain its ascendency over the minds of 
men by the influence of gentle persuasion. It owes its propagation 
more to the corrupt passions of men, than to any other cause. It 
flattered princes, and magistrates; by making them heads , and as your 
standard has it, “ nursing Fathers ” of the church. It flattered the 
lusts of faithless ecclesiastics, by teaching them that celibacy was 
contrary to the law of God. It flattered the pride of the multitude 
by telling them that each one of them, could understand the Scrip- 
tures better than all the Fathers , Councils , and Pastors of the Catho- 
lic church. It formed intrigues with civil power ; worked by revo- 
lution and violence; rewarded its votaries with the spoils of sacrilege, 
torn from the Catholic Clergy , Convents , Monasteries , and churches. 
Read the Protestant Doctor Heylin, and you will see the proof of 
what is here stated. 

Is it not then, somewhat surprising that you should have referred 
to the spread of Protestantism in Europe, as a proof that it is “ the 
Religion of Christ ;” whereas the very reference furnishes evidence 
of the contrary ! Has it not been propagated by violence, and main- 
tained by acts of Parliament P 

If then, as Mr. Breckinridge asserts, “ the Religion of Christ” is 
composed of “Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, 
Methodists, Moravians, and Presbyterians,” I ask him whether Christ 
revealed all the doctrines, on which these denominations are divided? 
Until he has answered this, my third “ stale question” remains; and 
what he has said is only the evasion of the difficulty. As to the fourth 
and fifth questions about the nullity of Protestant ordination, they 
seem to have taken him by surprise , although they are as “ stale” as 
the others. “ Want of room, compels him to delay an answer until 
the next letter, in which, Providence permitting, he will give one at 
large.” But is it not curious, that room should be wanting ? And 
that after nearly three months of evasion, the answer to a preliminary 
question should still be crowded out for “ want of room ?” 

Yours, &c. John Hughes. 

P. S. Translation of the eighth paragraph in which Mr. B. makes 
the author say that the church “was goverened by strumpets and for- 
gotten by God.” 

“ Who, considering these things, would not be scandalized, and 
think in amazement, that God had forgotten his church, which, he 


428 


CONTROVERSY. 


permitted to be disgraced at the will, (or caprice) of strumpets ? So 
indeed the holy Fathers sometimes complained, the suggestion whe- 
ther God had forsaken his church, sometimes striking their minds, 
whilst they saw the church almost overwhelmed by towering waves 
from every side. For hear the great Basil thus oppressed with the 
sense of these evils, writing as follows to the Alexandrians : ‘ But 

this thought has come to these speculations of my mind ; whether 
the Lord has entirely forsaken his churches, &c. whilst for example 
(which our own Bede also says) the church is sometimes not only 
afflicted but also disgraced by such oppressions from the Gentiles, 
that (if it were possible) her Redeemer would appear to have desert- 
ed her for a season, &c.’ The lamentation of the church is the voice 
of the mourning dove : ‘ I am forsaken and alone.’ But not so , be- 
cause it is in these evils particularly that we recognise the more 
earnest vigilance of Divine Providence towards his church, and the 
closer indwelling of his protection, solicitude and care. For although 
such great evils prevailed through this whole century, and scandals 
multiplied, still there was no one found to seperate on this account 
from the church of Rome, by schism, or rise against her by heresy; 
but all, in every part of the world, united by the bond of faith, con- 
tinued in the covenant of obedience. So that the saying of Nahum 
is applicable ; ‘why do you think against the Lord ? He will effect a 
consummation, a two-fold tribulation shall not arise.’ For whilst 
the church was labouring under these evils, she was not suffered to 
be divided by schisms, nor torn by the deceptions of heresies, but 
God preserved all the faithful in obedience to her. Which certainly 
would not have been the case if God had not provided with supreme 
vigilance, for her safety and integrity; in such a manner that the far- 
ther he seemed exteriorly to have withdrawn from her, so much the 
more do we recognize his interior presence supporting her with his 
hand, lest, agitated by the shocks of wicked men, she should be 
overthrown. Who will deny but this is to be considered as miracu- 
lous ? For, if something be thrown in the fire and is not consumed by 
it, we acknowledge greater power of God, than if the same thing is 
preserved, being remote from fire. And as St. Paul says, ‘ the 
fire shall try every man’s work of what kind it is ;’ certainly the 
evidence of the fact proves it to have been the work of God, when 
the Roman church, to which so many firebrands were applied, could 
not be consumed to destruction, and reduced to nothing. The de- 
claration and promise of Jesus Christ to the See of Peter, ‘ that the 
gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, has clearly stood, and will 
stand forever immoveable.’ ” 

Is this, Rev. Sir, saying that the church “ was forgotten by God ?” 

In the former letter, your quotation ran thus : “ That Theodora, a 
courtezan of noble family obtained supreme controul in Rome ; that 
she expelled the lawful Popes and put violent and nefarious men 
into the Papal chair, that the Pope Sergius III. committed adultery 
with her daughter, and their son John, the offspring of their crimes, 
was afterwards Pope himself; he says they were apostate Popes, 
not Apostolical ; calls the times deplorable ; and the scandal over- 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 429 

whelming; says the church was governed by strumpets, and forgot- 
ten by God.” 

This quotation, it will be remembered, you made under the threat 
of exposure , and from its unfairness the reader may infer what must 
be your quotations when you are under no such advisement of im- 
pending exposure. The reader would suppose that this quotation 
was taken out of one place in the original, that the context was unbro- 
ken. But no. Mr. Breckinridge made it up of scraps taken out of 
four different paragraphs of a folio page, divided. The first scrap is 
from the 5th paragraph, the 2d scrap from the 6th, the 3d scrap from 
the 5th again, the 4th scrap from the 4th paragraph, the 5th scrap 
from the 5th again, and the 6th scrap from the 7th paragraph. All 
these he transposes as suits his purpose ; tacks them together, and 
produces, without indicating a single breach of context , the quotation, 
as it stands above ! Has not Protestantism found in him, an able de- 
fender ? One it may be proud of? But this is not all. 

The words of the author to which he refers for the penultimate 
are “scrap,” “meretricum arbitrio infamari,” by which Baronius 
says, that God permitted the church “ infamari,” to be disgraced, 
“arbitrio,” at the caprice “meretricum,” of strumpets. But Mr. 
Breckinridge takes a short cut ; and makes Baronius say that the 
Church was “ governed by strumpets.” Nor is this all yet. He 
makes Baronius say that the Church “ was forgotten by God ; 
whereas Baronius not only does not say this, but says directly the 
contrary / And Mr. Breckinridge has the blushing modesty, to refer 
to the first words of the 7th paragraph, and call it the “ proof” 
(See Mr. B’s. last postscript,) of an untruth ; and which he must 
have known to be an untruth , if not when he first uttered it, at least, 
when he attempted the deception of proving it; since, with the 
same pen he rates Baronius as a * Jesuit,’ because he (Baronius) 
goes to prove , on the contrary , that the Church was not forsaken by 
God ! This proves that Mr. Breckinridge must have known at the 
time what Baronius said : and knowing this, how could he have 
the blushing modesty, as I said before, to write the word “proof,” 
when he himself furnishes the evidence that he knew the assertion 
to be proved, was untrue? Does not all this look strange ? Does 
Protestantism require such defence? If it does, you may say of it, on 
reviewing the labours of your pen, what Hector said of Troy, 

Si Pergama dextra 

Defendi possent, etiam, hac defensa fuissgnt. 


J. H. 


CONTROVERSY. No. XXXIV. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF CHRIST? 

Philadelphia , September 20th , 1833. 

To the Rev. John Hughes, 

Sir , — I consider it worth all the labour and trial to my feelings 
connected with this controversy, to have brought to the view of the 
American people the true system of the church of Rome, in her 
treatment of the Bible. What I peculiarly value in these disclosures 
is, that they have been made by her professed advocate in the pro- 
gress of this discussion. First, you asserted that the Bible was not 
a sufficient rule of faith, though God revealed it for that very end : 
next, you contended that it had no fixed meaning without an autho- 
ritative interpretation : then you conceded that if left to itself it did 
not teach the doctrines of the Papacy ; and finally, vou almost aban- 
don its use, and retreat to the forlorn hope of ‘ the Fathers.’ If you 
had written in Italy or Spain , you might with more frankness have 
spoken your whole mind. You would have owned that for these 
and other reasons (as I have proved already) it stands at the head of 
‘ Libros Prohibitos prohibited books at Rome. With Pighius you 
might have called it (see Hierarc. Lib. 3. c. 3.) ‘a nose of wax which 
easily suffers itself to be drawn backward and forward ; and moulded 
this way and that way, and however you like or with Turrian, ‘a 
shoe that will fit any foot, a sphynx’s riddle, or matter for strife 
(calceus utrique pedi aptus, sphyngis ^enigma, materia litis ;) or with 
Lessius, ‘ imperfect, doubtful, obscure, ambiguous, and perplexed 
or with the author, ‘ De Tribus veritatibus ‘ a forest for thieves, a 
shop of heretics lucus Proedonum, officina Hoereticorum. These 
are honest Romans ; but such candour would not have suited the 
latitude of an enlightened, and Bible-reading people. 

Finding that you renounced the defence of the Apocrypha, and the 
use of the Bible, I followed you to * the Fathers,’ ‘ whose unanimous 
consent’ you declared to be in your favour, and which is made in 
your creed, a part of the rule of faith, * according to which the sacred 
Scriptures are to be received and interpreted.’ Now we Protestants 
reverence the earliest Fathers ; and though we hold them to be fal- 
lible, and not unanimous, sometimes fanciful, erroneous, and pruned 
and corrupted by your church ; yet we still find the body of their 
testimony with us, and especially on fundamental doctrines. I think 
after the last four letters, the community are prepared to admit these 
two positions : 1. That you depend far more on the Fathers , than 
on the Bible ; and 2, that their ‘ unanimous consent ’ if it has a being, 
is by no means in your favour. But whatever you may assert , pre- 
suming on the fact that very few of your readers have access to them, 
it will not be denied that other Roman Catholic writers areas learned 
and honest as yourself. Let us see what they say of some of the 
very Fathers whom you claim, and on the very doctrines in proof of 
which you quote them. Cardinal Baronius, ‘ who is a Catholic his- 
torian,’ (Vol. I. p. 275. Sec. 213, Ann. 34.) thus writes : ‘ Alihough 
the most Holy Fathers, whom for their great learning, we rightly call 
the Doctors of the church, were indeed above others, imbued with 

430 


431 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

the grace of the Holy Spirit, yet the Catholic (Roman) church does 
not always, in all things follow their interpretation of the Scriptures.’ 
Bellarmine, (De Verbo Dei Lib. 3. c. x.) ‘It is one thing to inter- 
pret the law as a Doctor, and another thing, as a Judge: for ex- 
pounding as a Doctor learning is required: as a Judge, authority. 
For the opinion of the Doctor is to be followed so far as reason per- 
suades ; that of the Judge, from necessity Wherefore in their 

commentaries, Augustine and the other Fathers supply the place of 
teachers ; but the Popes and Councils, of a Judge commissioned by 
God.’ Cardinal Cajetan, [in Gen. 1.] ‘We must not reject a new 
sense of the Holy Scriptures because it differs from the ancient Doc- 
tors ; but we must search more exactly the context of Scripture; 
and if it agree [Si quadrat] praise God who has not tied the exposi- 
tion of the sacred Scriptures to the sense of the ancient Doctors.’ 
Such are the principles laid down by three of your Cardinals, two 
of whom have received your sanction. Now let us for a moment 
see their application. Bellarmine [De Amiss. Gra. B. 4. c. 15.] 
tells us, that ‘ the immaculate conception’ of the Virgin Mary though 
not an article of faith, is not to be condemned ; and ‘ that they who 
do it resist the decrees of Trent, and of two Popes ; and are not to 
be considered as Catholics.’ Yet your Bishop Cane says, [Theol. 
b. 7. c. 1.] ‘All the Holy Fathers with one voice (uno ore) affirm 
the blessed Virgin to have been conceived in original sin.’ Here 
they flatly contradict each other, and if Bellarmine is right, none of 
the Fathers were Roman Catholics : or if wrong, the Council of 
Trent erred. Which do you choose ? Cardinal Cusanus (Exerc. 
lib. 6,) writes, ‘ certain of the ancient Fathers are found of this mind, 
that the bread in the sacrament is not transubstantiated, nor changed 
in nature .’ Yet Mr. Hughes claims all the Fathers for this doc- 
trine ! Who shall be believed, the learned Cardinal, or the Priest 
expectant P Bellarmine cites Ignatius (as Mr. Hughes did) in proof 
of the real presence. (Lib. 2. c. 2. De Euch.) But when we adduce 
Ignatius to prove that the cup is to be given to all, in the sacrament, 
viz. on his epistle to the Philadelphians, * one bread is broken for 
all ; one cup is distributed to all ;’ Bellarmine rejects the author, 
saying, ‘ not much faith is to be put in the Greek copies of Ignatius /’ 
(Euch. b. 4. c. 26.) Augustine especially is grossly trifled with in 
this way. He says (De Mor. Eccles. c. 36.) * I know certain wor- 
shipers of tombs and pictures whom the church condemneth,’ Bellar- 
mine remarks on this (De Imag. c. 16.) ‘ Augustine wrote this book 
soon after his conversion to the Catholic faith !’ On the famous 
passage against Transubstantiation cited by me from Augustine in 
which (see 1 Cor. x. 3. 4.) he speaks of the manna, and the rock 
Christ: Maldonat the Jesuit thus remarks : ‘ I am verily persuaded 
that if Augustine had been living in these days and had seen the 
Calvinists so interpret St. Paul, he would have been of another mind, 
especially being such an enemy to heretics.’ (In John 6. n. 50.) Au- 
gustine says, (contro duos Eps. Pelag. &c.) ‘ The works which are 
done without faith, though they seem good, are turned into sin.' 
Maldonat says of this: ‘We may not defend that opinion which 
the Council of Trent did of late justly condemn ; although the great 


432 


CONTROVERSY. 


Father St. Augustine seemed to be of that opinion.’ (Com. in Matth. 
vii. 18.) Here is a Roman Catholic author, of at least as good title 
to infallibility as Mr. Hughes, who condemns Augustine, the ‘ great 
Father,’ and held him up as contradictory to, and condemned by the 
‘ great Council’ of Trent! Augustine (Deverbo Dom. serm. 13,) 
on the words of Christ, ‘ Thou art Peter , and on this rock / will 
build my church ,’ says, ‘ The rock was Christ .’ Stapleton answers 
(Princip. Doc. lib. 6. 3.) ‘ It was a human error caused by the di- 
versity of the Greek and Latin tongue, which either he was ignorant 
of, or marked not.’ Bellarmine (b. 1. de Pont. c. 10.) condemns 
the Father, saying, ‘ Augustine was deceived by his ignorance only 
of the Hebrew tongue.’ Bishop Cane (Loc. Theo. 1. 7. c. 3,) owns 
that ‘ the ancient Fathers sometimes err, and against the ordinary 
course of nature bring forth a monster. 

I could fill sheets with these exceptions to the Fathers. But it is 
unnecessary. Here then we clearly discover that in the judgment 
of a crowd of Roman Catholic authors, some of whom you have 
publicly approved, the Fathers often err ; they contradict each other, 
they oppose the Catholic (Roman) faith, they are ignorant of the 
learned languages, they speak like Calvinists, they misunderstood 
Christ, they are fanciful, they are not to be followed, the Council 
of Trent condemned them, and as for their ‘unanimous consent,’ it 
is fiction which was never found ; while ‘ the Bible is a nose of 
wax,’ the Fathers have as many faces as Proteus, and are to be used 
or rejected as occasion may require, or their varying opinions per- 
mit. When we add to this, that the Fathers have been altered and 
many of their works erased and Romanized , it would seem indeed 
a slender and unstable foundation, to build a religion on ; especially 
when their ‘ unanimous consent’ is your rule of faith. 

Never did sons treat Fathers so uncourteously as the loyal Jesuits 
treat the ancients, while they torture them into their service, or 
chastise them for their Protestant partialities. Like the ancient ne- 
cromancers (Isaiah viii. 19—21,) who forsook ‘the law and the 
testimony’ of God, they roam through the ‘ wilderness’ of the Fa- 
thers ‘ hungry and hard bestead and fret themselves,’ while they 
search in vain for their unanimous consent in support of the Papacy. 
As the Scriptures fail you in the time of need, so we find the Fathers 
cannot help you ; and the higher you rise in antiquity the more de- 
cidedly Protestant do they become, until the last traces of Roman- 
ism disappear amidst the better light of the ante-Nicene Fathers. 
Before I dismiss this subject it is due to myself to say, notwithstand- 
ing all your peevish charges and unworthy reflections, that I have 
suppressed nothing in my various extracts from the Fathers which, 
to my knowledge, in the least degree favoured your cause, or injured 
mine. So far from this, ample matter of the strongest kind in my 
favour, has been omitted to make room for other departments of the 
argument. If their writings could be presented in unbroken connex- 
ion, the argument against you would appear in tenfold strength. It 
is you who profitably insulated sentences and figurative terms uptom 
from their natural relations and true coherence. Your readers can- 
not forget Tertullian, and Wesley, and Luther, and Jewel, who were 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


433 


made by you to speak a language so foreign from their meaning by 
the citation of disjointed extracts. Even in your last letter, while 
charging me with such unfairness, you leave unnoticed all the strong 
passages and enlarge upon those which seem to you most easily ex- 
plained, like feeble commentators who skip the hard places, and are 
profound and redundant on those which are easy. 

II. I may here, as properly as elsewhere, allude to your last and 
feeble struggle for Transubstantiation. You say, * I maintain that 
this very concealment of the Eucharist from Pagans, Jews, and 
Catechumens, is by itself a powerful proof of the Catholic doctrine.’ 
You allude in this sentence to what has been called the secret dis- 
cipline of the early church, i. e. the custom which originated in the 
second century of withholding the mysteries of Christianity from 
those who were not initiated. You say, 1st. * if it were mere bread 
and wine, what motive could there exist to conceal it V Answer, 
here you take for granted, that the only thing concealed was the 
doctrine of the Eucharist. Yet, two sentences above, Cyril, of Je- 
rusalem, whom you cite, distinctly contradicts you ; for he says, 
* we declare not to the Gentiles the hidden mysteries of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost.’ Then the Trinity, the Incarnation, &c. 
were among these mysteries ? I return then your question upon 
you, and ask what motive they had to conceal these mysteries ? Be- 
sides there is no evidence (as Faber triumphantly shows in his an- 
swer to the Bishop of Aire,) that the doctrine of the Eucharist was 
among the doctrinal mysteries at all. Cyril does not even mention 
it in the passage just quoted. Of course your inference falls to the 
ground. 

2. You say, * when they were accused of murdering a child and 
feasting on its flesh in their assemblies,’ it would have been easy 
and natural to refute the calumny, and say that it was merely a little 
bread and wine they took figuratively in memory of Christ’s body 
and death. But this they never said ; even when they were tortur- 
ed, as was sometimes the case, to force them into a confession of 
what it was.’ Here you are still more unfortunate than before. The 
fact is directly against Transubstantiation. During the persecution 
at Lyons, A. D. 177, ‘ the Pagans wishing to ascertain the secret 
ceremonial of the Christians, apprehended their slaves, and put them 
to the torture. Impatient of the pain, and having nothing to tell 
which might please their tormentors, the slaves, who had heard their 
masters say that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ, 
forthwith communicated this circumstance. Whereupon the tormen- 
tors, fancying that it was literal flesh and blood served up in the 
mysteries of the Christians, hastened to inform the other Pagans. 
These immediately apprehended the martyrs, Sanctus and Blandina, 
and endeavoured to extort from them a confession of the deed. But 
Blandina readily and boldly answered, how can those who through 
piety abstain even from lawful food, be capable of perpetrating the 
actions which you allege against them V These are the words of 
Iraeneus preserved by Ecuinenius. Those slaves, and the Pagans 
whom they had informed, mistook the doctrine of the Eucharist as 
the Jews did, and you do now, supposing the Christians to feed on 

31 


434 


CONTROVERSY. 


real flesh. But these Christians denied from first to last that it was 
literally flesh and blood which was served up for them. Was not 
this a denial of the real presence ? Could they in truth have denied 
that they did eat literal flesh if they had believed Transubstantiation? 
How then, this argument can help your cause I confess myself 
wholly at a loss to determine. 3. You add, ‘ They would not have 
celebrated the Eucharist with doors inviolably closed, for even the 
High Priest would not be scandalized at seeing them eat bread and 
drink wine, though he might if he saw them adoring the flesh of 
Jesus Christ.’ it would have been hard indeed for them to close 
their doors to conceal a doctrine which they did not believe, and 
which until ages after was never heard of! They closed their doors 
because they were persecuted, as well as because of their mysteries ; 
and they were persecuted, and they worshipped with closed doors 
long before they were charged with eating human flesh. As to the 
Jews and High Priest, it was worshipping Christ as God which 
scandalized the Jews before the Eucharist was instituted ; and you 
have sense enough to know, that the early Christians might worship 
Christ as we do now, without worshipping the bread. The Jews 
would have been scandalized by the Protestant doctrine as much as 
the Papal, excluding however the dreadful absurdity and idolatry of 
Transubstantiation. 

You must have been nodding over your midnight lamp, when you 
make me to say, that ‘ Christ could remove out of the wall or door, 
space for his body to enter by, and then close it up again.’ My 
words were, 4 do you forget that Christ had power miraculously to 
open a passage for his body through the door or wall and close it 
again?’ Besides this perversion you entirely omit the preceding 
and the succeeding illustrations drawn from the miraculous opening 
of the prison doors for the Apostles ; and from the transmission of 
light through a pane of glass. But it is plain that you write for those 
who from prohibitions and the fear of light read your letters alone, 
and see my arguments as they are reflected in distorted forms from 
your pages only. The couplet from Watts, to which you refer, 
needed no comment. In expression it is most unhappy ; yet as con- 
veying the doctrine that He who was born of a woman was also God, 
I fully subscribe to it ; and we are willing to bear all the censures to 
which you subject us for refusing to worship the body of Christ, if 
separated from his divinity. It is his divinity which we adore ; and 
believing his divinity and humanity inseparably’ blended in the per- 
son of Jesus Christ, we worship him. But the doctrine of Tran- 
substantiation is idolatrous because it worships his body alone; and 
as I proved in my last letter, you are guilty of idolatry whether the 
doctrine be true or false. But why are you silent on the argument 
brought against you from Hume ? Why do you not defend your 
doctrine from the proof of leading to infidelity, or else give it up ? 
And where is the expected answer to my seven separate exposures 
of the sacrifice of the mass ? Can you not meet them ? And yet 
own that it is your chief business to offer this sacrifice? Will you 
leave your chief business and your chief gain thus unsheltered in 
the field of argument ? And where is now your communion in one 


436 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

kind ? Have you nothing to say for this daring act ? Must not our 
readers' see that it is no answer to all I have said on this subject to 
remind me that a Protestant Synod in France once said half-com- 
munion was right ? Neither you nor I hold to the infallibility of a 
Protestant Synod. You leave us then to sing the mournful coronah 
of these departed doctrines ; while you take up the lamentation of 
the poet, 

“ Come then expressive silence, muse their praise.’* 

How you will next look your friends in the face during the sacrifice 
of Mass, or withhold from them again the cup in the Eucharist, it 
must be for conscience and pained memory to answer. You have 
at least this consolation uttered once by way of comfort , ‘ You could 
do no more ; for you have done all you could.’ 

As to the ancient Liturgies, every scholar knows that they are re- 
plete with forgeries of the church of Rome. The Liturgy attributed 
to St. Peter, mentions St. Cyprian, who died some two hundred years 
after Peter ! Cardinal Bona owns it to have been spurious. The 
Ethiopic Liturgy, attributed to St. Matthew, speaks of the Synods 
of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, which were held centuries 
after Matthew’s death. St. James’s Liturgy speaks of Monasteries , 
which every one knows originated ages after his day ; and it quotes 
from Paul’s Epistles, most of which were written after James’s death. 
The ceremonies mentioned in these Liturgies were also wholly un- 
known in the Apostles’ days. If you say these things were added 
to them in after ages ; then why not those too on Transubstantiation ? 
They did not exist at that day ; but allow they did ; then, as they 
have been corrupted , what proof do they afford you ? As to the 
Liturgy of the Jacobites which you adduce, it is strange that their 
book of Homilies and Breviary, should contradict their Liturgy ; 
and still more strange that the Roman Catholic Inquisition at Goa, 
should condemn these books for rejecting * Transubstantiation ;’ and 
yet that their Liturgy should contain this doctrine. As to your own, 
you do not deny that it has been altered to suit your doctrine ; for 
whereas the ancient form ran thus, ‘make this oblation to us allowa- 
ble, rational, and acceptable, which is the figure of thebody and blood 
of our Lord' it is now changed to read thus, ‘ that the oblation may 
be made to us the body and blood of our Lord dropping ‘ figure’ 
from the ancient form which was plain Protestant doctrine. Who 
then can trust to your testimonies ? 

III. As the matter of the present letter is necessarily multifarious, 
we may as properly here as any where, canvass your answers to my 
several questions. 

1st Question. ‘ Did Pope Liberius subscribe the Arian creed V 
Mr. Hughes’ answer. ‘ I say that Pope Liberius did not sign the 
Arian Creed in the Arian sense or meaning .’ It is obvious that this 
answer is a most disingenuous evasion ; I therefore repeated the 
question in my last letter, wishing to know in what sense Liberius 
did sign it. But the oracle is dumb ; it gives no response to this 
question. I have already proved (in Letter No. 28,) that this Pope 
did adopt the Arian Creed. It may be proper, however, here to add, 
that Dupin with his usual candour, says, (page 62, vol. 2.) ‘ Libe- 


436 


CONTROVERSY. 


riiis did not only subscribe the condemnation of St. Athanasius, but 
he also consented to an Heretical Confession of Faith.’ The sainted 
Hilary (In Fragm :) says of the Confession of Faith signed by Li- 
berius ; * this is the Arian perfidity. I anathematize thee and thy 
companions, 0 Liberius, and again, and a third time I anathematize 
thee.’ Athanasius confirms the relation of Hilary, and denounces 
the apostacy of Liberius, ‘ who through fear of death, subscribed.’ 
Jerome, in his Catalogue and Chronicon, states the same fact ; so 
also Fortunatian, Philostorgius, Damasus, and Sozomen ; and in 
more modern times Platina, Eusebius, Mezeray, Bruys, Petavius, 
&c. &c. all testify to the same fact. From these statements there 
result two conclusions. 1. The head of the infallible church from 
whom, according to Mr. Hughes, all right to preach the Gospel and 
administer its sacraments proceed, and to whom ‘ every creature 
must be subject in order to be saved,’ apostatized into damnable here- 
sy. 2. It appears, I regret to say, how little faith is to be put in the 
statements of my Rev. opponent, who flatly contradicts the testimony 
of antiquity on this subject. 

2d Question. ‘Did the Councils of Sirmium and Ariminum adopt 
Arian Creeds ?’ Mr. Hughes’s answer. ‘ No council recognized 
by the Catholic church, ever adopted the Arian Creed. For the 
errors of other councils or general assemblies, the church is not ac- 
countable.’ This reply is curious enough. It involves, however, 
the admission that the said Councils did adopt the Arian heresy. 
This I have already proved (see Letter No. 28,) and as one of them 
was certainly approved by the Pope, so on your own definition it 
was an infallible council ; and therefore it is an article of faith in the 
Roman church, binding on all her members at this day, that Jesus 
Christ was not God, that his divinity is a figment , and Unitarians 
are right. It is a striking fact, which I hope to have the opportu- 
nity soon of publicly proving, that it is not agreed in the church of 
Rome which are infallible councils ; and there is just as much evi 
dence that the Pope and council who adopted the Arian Creed were 
infallible, as that the Council of Trent was. 

3. ‘ Does the validity of ordinations, administrations of the sacra- 
ments, &c., depend on the intention of Popes, Bishops, and Priests ?’ 
Mr. Hughes’s answer. ‘ In heaven or on earth, in time or in eter- 
nity there is no motive for him (the Priest) to withhold his intention ; 
and deliberate wicked actions without any motive or inducement, are 
not to be presumed.’ This is strange logic indeed ! The Council 
of Trent must have thought very differently when they enacted as 
follows: (6tn Chap. Ilth Canon.) ‘Whosoever shall affirm that 
when ministers perform and confer a Sacrament, it is not necessary 
that they should at least have the intention to do what the church 
does, let him be accursed.’ Bellarmine must have thought different- 
ly, for he says, (Lib. 3. c. 8. Justif :) ‘ no man can fye certain with 
the certainty of faith that he receives a true Sacrament ; because it 
depends on the minister’s intention to consecrate it ; and none can 
see another’s intention.’ Now if all Popes and Priests be not per- 
fect and infallible they may lack this intention. Your answer con- 
cedes, impliedly, that if they should lack it, evils must result. The 


437 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

fact is, we have clivers examples of sacrilegious Priests and concealed 
Jews, who have owned at their death that during their whole Priest- 
hood in the Roman church, they never had, in any of their conse- 
crating acts that intention which the church of Rome prescribes. 
Then in such cases these men having many thousand souls under 
their care must, on your own doctrine, have ruined them all. The 
infants they appeared to baptize, were not baptized, therefore by 
your creed they are lost ; when they appeared to consecrate the bread 
in the Eucharist, they did not, and therefore the thousands to whom 
they administered it were guilty of idolatry ; no marriage ceremony 
performed by them was valid, therefore all who were thus united by 
them lived in adultery, and their children were illegitimate ; all their 
uses of Extreme Unction were fraudulent, therefore all who died 
under their hands are lost forever ; the innumerable souls in Purga- 
tory for whom they offered up the sacrifice of the Mass are still held 
there, because, from lack of intention, it was no real sacrifice. The 
same remarks may be extended to every Bishop and every Pope. A 
Pope, centuries ago, may have lacked intention in conferring orders, 
and all the Bishops, and all the Priests who derived orders from him, 
remained laymen for life, because he lacked intention ; and all their, 
acts were invalid : the sacraments they administered were null and 
void, so were their ordinations; and the innumerable millions of 
souls to whom they and their successors administered from age to 
age were lost, and the ten thousand Priests and Bishops who got 
their ordination from this poisoned source, acted without authority, 
and the Rev. Mr. Hughes may be one of them. Who can tell? 
Surely Pope Sergius III ; Pope John XI; Pope Alexander VI? 
(whom Baronius -owns a true Pope) could not have had intention to 
do their duty in any of these acts; and yet from these filthy foun- 
tains the stream of ordination has flowed in successive centuries 
through all the Roman church, and down from generation to gene- 
ration of the Priesthood unto the Rev. Mr. Hughes himself ! Catha- 
rin, Bishop of Minori, stated this evil with appalling force before 
the Council of Trent. ‘ Behold (says he) here, how by the wicked- 
ness of a minister, we find in one sole act a million of nullities in 

Sacraments If it should happen that a Priest who hath charge of 

four or five thousand souls, should be an unbeliever, but withal a 
great hypocrite, and that in the absolution of penitents, and the bap- 
tism of little children, and the consecration of the Eucharist, he 
should have a secret intention not to do what the church doth, we 
must conclude the little children damned, the penitents unabsolved, 
and all deprived of the fruits of the holy communion.’ Father Paul, 
the Roman Catholic historian of the Council of Trent, says, (B. 2. 
p. 226.) ‘ the divines (of the Council) did not approve this doctrine, 
yet were troubled and knew not how to resolve the reason ; but they 
still defended that the true intention of the minister was necessary, 
either actual or virtual.’ If then, there is the least certainty in any 
sacrament or ordination of the church of Rome, or if there is the 
least satisfactory proof that the living Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops, 
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of the church of Rome embrace one 
single ordained man, who has ‘ any divine right to exercise the 


438 


CONTROVERSY. 


Christian ministry more than other educated laymen (See Mr. 
Hughes’ 5th Question,) then I will own that it is possible to prove, 
and right to believe an impossibility. 

The 4th question, on the subject of schisms in the Popedom, plu- 
rality of Popes, &c. Mr. Hughes has also evaded ; but my previous 
letters have so fully laid this subject bare, that I need not dwell on 
it here. 

My 5th question, touching the liberty of the press, and the 1 pro- 
hibiting committee’ at Rome, Mr. Hughes thus obliquely touches. 
“ About the freedom of the press at Rome, and the ‘ Prohibiting 
Committee’ which you are pleased to imagine for the benefit of * all 
the church,’ I answer, that the latter does not exist, and the former 
is a question on which every man may abound in his own sense.” 
Here, then, you again deny an historical fact. The Council of Trent, 
in its 25th session, enacted that a Committee which that body had 
appointed, acting for the council and under the Pope, should draw 
up and publish an Index of books which were to be prohibited to the 
whole church. This committee did accordingly draw up such an In- 
dex, and published it, accompanied by ten most tyrannical rules 
sanctioned by the Pope, and binding on all the church. This Com- 
mittee is permanent, and from year to year has added to their work, 
until now the Index which is only a catalogue of prohibited books, 
makes’ a large volume. I have a copy of this book now in my pos- 
session, printed at Rome A. D. 1787, by order of the Pope. In 
the title page it is written, ‘ In this edition are inserted in their pro- 
per places, the books recently prohibited, even to the year 1787.’ 
The Brief of the Pope, of the same date, and the ten rules of the 
standing Committee, are prefixed to the work, as «also Decrees con- 
cerning prohibited books, Instructions, Constitutions, &c. for regu- 
lating the press. The Pope tells us in his Brief, that the said Index 
is binding on all persons, every where, under pain of such punish- 
ment as is therein and elsewhere denounced. In this base book we 
find such works as Locke’s, Milton’s, Galileo’s, &c. &c., and in fact 
all writings containing any thing contra-religionem Catholicam, 
‘against the Catholic Religion.’ Thus is a war of extermination wa- 
ged by the authority of the church against letters, liberty, and con- 
science ; and thus does the church of Rome shrink in conscious^ error 
and by wicked means from free inquiry ; and thus is Mr. Hughes ex- 
posed when he denies that such a Committee exists. This book is 
open for inspection at the Education Rooms, No. 29 Sansom street, 
where gentlemen may call and see for themselves. The 4th rule 
which we have often quoted, prohibits the having, or reading, or sell- 
ing of GocVs holy ivord in any living language, except by a written 
permission from the Inquisitor, or Bishop, with the advice of a priest 
or confessor. In Letter No. 26, I presented at large a decree of the 
great Lateran Council against the freedom of printing, which you have 
never noticed. The first rule of the standing committee at Rome, con- 
demns all books which had been condemned by the Popes or gene- 
ral Councils, before A. D. 1515 ; the creed of Pius IV. confirms all 
previous canons and decrees of General Councils, and of course this 
decree against the freedom of the press ; and the reigning Pope de 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


459 


flounces the liberty of the press as ‘ that fatal license of which we 
cannot entertain sufficient horror.’ From these facts it appears 
that the liberty of the press is proscribed by the decrees of Coun- 
cils and acts of Popes, which are binding upon every Roman Ca- 
tholic on earth ; and that a standing committee exists at Rome, (of 
which Mr. Hughes is ashamed, and which he has the hardihood to 
deny) to enforce these decrees against personal and civil liberty. 
In your answer you utter this extraordinary sentence: ‘ About the 
freedom of the press, at Rome, every man may abound in his own 
sense.’ Then it seems you are afraid to condemn these decrees, 
lest haply you be found fighting against Rome ; and you are afraid 
to defend them before the American people, who justly consider the 
freedom of the press the palladium of their civil and religious rights. 
Will not such evasions convince a free people that your system is at 
enmity with the freedom of the press ? Are not such unmanly sub- 
terfuges anti-American as well as anti-Christian ? What ! an American 
citizen decline approving the liberty of the press ? Is it not appa- 
rent that you are afraid of the subject, and that the Papacy and the 
republic cannot flourish together ? 

In answer to the seventh question, you say, ‘ I answer, that in my 
opinion , religion and science suffered by the suppression of the Je- 
suits, and that both are gainers by their restoration. This opinion is 
founded on the fact that they are hated for their zeal, and admired 
for their learning by all the infidels in Europe. As to the Inquisi- 
tion, it may have been a good thing abused.’ This is an ominous 
avowal ! I have before me the Bull or Brief of Clement the 14th, 
dated A. D. 1773, for the suppression of the order of the Jesuits. 
In the course of this Bull the Pope tells us that notwithstanding his 
own, and his predecessors efforts, the most violent contentions per- 
vaded nearly the whole world concerning both the doctrines and mo- 
rals of the Jesuits, and that these dissensions especially from with- 
out, were created by accusations against the society for amassing 
wealth ; that to his great grief, all the remedies applied by him to 
restore the peace of the church had failed, so that these clamours 
against them daily increasing, at length seditions, tumults and scan- 
dals occurred, which weakened and dissolved the bonds of Chris- 
tian love, and violently inflamed the minds of the faithful with party 
animosities and rancour ; that at length the king of France, the king 
of Spain, the king of Portugal, and the. king of the two Sicilies, who 
had once been famous for their great liberality to the Jesuits, expell- 
ed them from their kingdoms, finding that to be the only way to heal 
the divisions by which their Christian people were torn even in the 
bosom of the Holy Mother Church. He proceeds to say, that last- 
ing peace could not be restored to the church while the society exist- 
ed ; that it had ceased to do the good for which it was established, 
and that the laws of prudence, and the best government of the uni- 
versal church, required him to extinguish and suppress the order of 
the Jesuits ; which he accordingly did. This, you will mark, was 
only sixty years ago ; and it was done for the above reasons, not by 
* infidels,’’ but by the head of the Universal Church , and became a 
law binding on the conscience of all the faithful. How Mr. Hughes 


440 


CONTROVERSY. 


will settle this question with the Pope, it is not forme to say. These 
Jesuits have in succession been expelled from almost every kingdom 
upon earth. Bishop Taylor, in his Dissuasive from Popery, has proved, 
with masterly skill, that their principles and practices are incompatible 
with the safety of governments, destructive of Christian morals, and 
even of Christian society, where they prevail. Pascal, who was 
himself a Roman Catholic, has written his Provincial Letters for the 
purpose of exposing the detestable principles and infamous morals 
of the order of the Jesuits. The Jesuit’s Catechism is another 
work, which in a large volume exposes their enormities, intrigues, 
assassinations, dissolute principles, and dangerous influence in the 
church and state. Their own Secreta Monita, ‘ secret instructions,* 
now published in this country, in a separate volume, having been 
providentially brought to light, expose their true character upon their 
own showing. This Society has recently been revived by the Pope, 
as a fit instrument to aid the Papacy in its expiring struggle. The 
successive revolutions of Europe have shaken the Papacy to its cen- 
tre ; the advancing light of the age, the increasing love of liberty 
among the people, and the repeated conquests which they have made 
of their dearest rights, both civil and religious, from priest - craft and 
king - craft in the old world, have lessened beyond measure the power 
of the Papacy, and left crowds of off-cast Priests and Jesuits with- 
out employment. These men, in augmenting numbers, are seeking 
our shores. The fall of the Papacy in Europe thus gives it a tem- 
porary impulse in our beloved country. These are the accessions 
•of which you boast : not proselytes from Protestants, as you would 
have us think, but the dregs of Jesuitism cast from Europe upon our 
country. Once, guileless Protestants confided their children to the 
training of these men. But it is becoming apparent that they will 
do so no more. Let them work their machinations ; but Protestant 
parents have learned, at length, not to trust a Jesuit with the forma- 
tion of their children’s minds and hearts. I speak of the Priesthood 
and not of the people of your church. The people are the most en- 
lightened Roman Catholics on earth. We have much to hope from 
the influence of liberty and Gospel light upon them : and even now 
you retain their allegiance by hiding from their view the real defor- 
mities of the Papacy ; and by repressing, without ceasing, that as- 
piration after religious liberty which has begun to glow in the breasts 
of all men. 

Your apology for the Inquisition shall stand as its own exppres- 
sive comment. ‘ May have been a good institution !’ And can you 
say this in the face of your country ? Have you read its history ? 
Have you counted its racks ? Have you heard the groans of its in- 
numerable victims ? Have you examined its filthy seraglios? Paul 
the IV. called it the * battering-ram of heresy ;’ and the Rev. Mr. 
Hughes, in a late letter, talked of the Roman church as having 
4 branded ’ every heresy. I wish that my limits allowed me to give 
the history of the institution, that I might tell my country of its cru- 
sades, its inquisitors, and its victims, (who are only considered in- 
nocent when, by mistake, a Papist is arrested for a Protestant ;) of 
its warfare against the press, the Bible, the morality of the Gospel, 


441 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

and the rights of man. Let my readers consult Baker, or Limborh, 
or Geddes, or Lavalle, or the Key to Popery, or any history of those 
countries in which it has been established, if they would learn how 
(as Bellarmine says) the church destroys Heretics , and how useful 
the Inquisition is. In the mean time, let it not be forgotten that the 
Rev. Mr. Hughes says, 1 it may have been a good thing abused.’ 
Perhaps the next most dreadful engine of tyrannic power beside the 
Inquisition and the crusade, is the Papal Interdict. This is no less 
than stopping the connexion between Heaven and a whole state or 
nation that has offended the Pope. This tremendous censure has 
been executed in France, Italy, and Germany, not to mention the 
famous effort of the Pope to crush the Republic of Venice, for daring 
to interfere with the property of Ecclesiastics within that state. 
Hume, who surely was not a friend to Protestants, (See Hist, of 
England, Chap. XI. reign of John,) gives us the following fearful 
account of the Pope’s Interdict on that realm : “ The sentence of in- 
terdict was at that time the great instrument of vengeance and policy 
employed by the court of Rome; was denounced against sovereigns 
for the lightest offences ; and made the guilt of one person involve 
the ruin of millions, even in their spiritual and eternal welfare. The 
execution of it was calculated to strike the senses in the highest de- 
gree, and operate with irresistible force on the superstitious minds 
of the people. The nation was of a sudden deprived of all exterior 
exercise of its religion : the altars were despoiled of their ornaments; 
the crosses, the relics, the images, the statues of the Saints were laid 
on the ground ; and, as if the air itself were profaned, and might 
pollute them by its contact, the Priests carefully covered them up, 
even from their own approach and veneration. The use of bells en- 
tirely ceased in all the churches ; the bells themselves were removed 
from the steeples, and laid on the ground with other sacred utensils. 
Mass was celebrated with shut doors, and none but the Priests were 
admitted to that holy institution. The laity partook of no religious 
rite, except baptism to new-born infants, and the communion to the 
dying; the dead were not interred in consecrated ground ; they were 
thrown into ditches, or buried in common fields ; and their obsequies 
were not attended with prayers or any hallowed ceremony. Mar- 
riage was celebrated in the church yards ; and that every action in 
life might bear the marks of this dreadful situation, the people were 
prohibited the use of meat, as in Lent, or times of the highest pen- 
ance ; were debarred from all pleasures and entertainments, and even 
to salute each other, or so much as to shave their beards, and give 
any decent attention to their person and apparel. Every circum- 
stance carried symptoms of the deepest distress, and of the most im- 
mediate apprehension of divine vengeance and indignation.” The 
Pope afterwards proceeded to excommunicate the King ; next, to ab- 
solve his subjects from the oath of allegiance, and to declare every 
one excommunicated, who had any intercourse with him ; he pro- 
mised John’s throne to the King of France, who raised an army to 
secure it ; and it was not until John had resigned England and Ire- 
land to the Pope, and agreed to pay the annual tax of one thousand 
marks, as feudatory to the Pope, that he was permitted again to wear 

3 K 


442 CONTROVERSY. 

his crown. Here is the blessedness of Papal domination ; * a good 

INSTITUTION ABUSED !’ . 

A word upon your answer to the 8th question, in which you say, 
4 so far from this (that is, the Jewish traditions) regarded the proof 
of Jewish faith , before the coming of Christ, I do not reject them.’ 
You owned in a previous letter that the Jewish church was infalli- 
ble, until superseded by Christ ; of course all their traditions to that 
time were infallible. And now, from the above answer it follows, 
that the Jewish tradition of the canon was true; for this regarded 
their faith at the very foundation. But they rejected the Apocryphal 
Books. Hence, your church errs in holding them. Again, it was 
a Jewish tradition touchin g faith that the Messiah was to be a tem- 
poral Prince ; even Christ’s Apostles, when first called, held this 
article of faith. Hence, on your admission, this doctrine, though so 
absurd and false, must be true. I need not multiply points ; but it 
is a fact, that the Jewish traditions were better supported than those 
of your church ; and yours and theirs must stand or fall together. 
As Jesus said of theirs, so it is true of yours, that you ‘ make the 
word of God of none effect by your Traditions, teaching for doctrines 
the commandments of men.’ (See Mark, 7th chap.) The character 
of these questions induced you, I suppose, to pass in silence those 
which remain. They are certainly unanswerable on your principles. 
Let me simply repeat them here almost without comment as unan 
swered by you. * 

Is there any evidence of the Pope’s supremacy before the Council 
of Nice ? I answer, no. The 6th canon of the Council of Nice, 
passed A. D. 325, puts the Bishop of Alexandria, the Bishop of 
Antioch and of Rome, on the same footing. Has the Pope a right 
to put a kingdom under interdict, or to depose a monarch or chief 
magistrate ? No : and yet the Pope claims it ; Popish writers de- 
fend it ; Popes have often done it ; and Mr. Hughes is afraid of the 
question. 

Did the second Council of Pisa decree a Reformation in faith or 
not ? It did. Did the Council of Lateran, in 1215, pass an anathema 
against those rulers who should tax ecclesiastics P It did : there is 
a decree on that subject. Is not the second commandment dropped 
from the catechisms which are in common use in your church in 
Europe and America ? I have proved that it is. Have not ‘ the Fa- 
thers’ been altered and pruned by authority in your church ? Yes' 
there is ample evidence of the fact. Are the Missal and the Breviary 
authorized and standard works? They are ; but Mr. Hughes seems 
ashamed of the latter. 

To the only remaining question, viz: ‘ Were the Apostles priests 
when they administered Extreme Unction, Mark vi. 13 ?’ You an- 
swer: ‘The Apostles were not Priests; neither was it Extreme 
Unction they administered in the case referred to, Mark vi. 13.’ 
The Council of Trent (Sess 14. Can. 1.) expressly says, ‘ that Ex- 
treme Unction was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ ;’ and you 
allow that none but Jesus Christ could institute a sacrament ; yet 
you say ‘ It was not Extreme Unction they administered,’ Mark vi. 
13. Pray then when was it < instituted ? If not then, Christ never 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


443 


did it ; for this is the only mention of it in all the Gospels ; and 
James did not and could not institute it in his epistle ; for it was not 
competent to an Apostle to do such a thing. So it appears that there 
is, on your interpretation, no such sacrament. Again ; the Council 
of Trent says, (Sess. 16, chap. 1.) ‘ this sacred unction was first in- 
timated by Mark vi. 13,’ but you say this was not extreme unction ; 
wherefore you contradict the Council of Trent. Finally there is a 
dilemma here from which it is impossible to escape ; for if this sa- 
crament was instituted Mark vi. 13. (as it was, if ever) then the Apds- 
tles administered a sacrament not being Priests ; but the Council of 
Trent says, (Sess. 14. chap. 3.) ‘Bishops, or Priests properly or- 
dained by them, are the proper ministers of the sacrament of extreme 
unction;’ and yet they say (Sess. 22. chap. 3.) ‘that the Apostles 
were first made Priests at the last supper.’ Here then, while you 
contradict the council on one point, it contradicts itself on another ; 
and which ever way you take it, the council has erred. 

IV. Having now seen how you answer some of my questions, 
and wholly pass by others, I proceed to reply to the fourth and fifth 
in your series; they are in substance this: Did the Reformers re- 
ceive any new ministerial authority after the withdrawal of that which 
they had received from the church ; and if not, had they any divine 
right to exercise the Christian ministry ? The proper answer to 
these questions turns on the settlement of a previous question, viz: 
‘ had the church of Rome the right or power in this case to with- 
draw their ministerial authority ?’ When Athanasius was deposed, 
4 unfrocked,’ as you say, by the Arian bishops, had he a right to 
preach or not ? If he had not, then the Arian majority in the church 
did right in deposing him for holding the divinity of Jesus Christ. 
But you will hardly defend them. It was an unlawful stretch of 
power, and he was not actually deposed, nor his ministerial power 
really recalled. Then the principle is plain, that when a church de- 
poses ministers of Christ for refusing to preach ruinous errors , and 
refusing to submit to oppressive usurpations , the deposing act is null 
and void. 

Jfa minister of Christ be deposed for refusing to sin , the deposition 
is null and void. If this be not true, then you hold that a man must 
sin , knowing it to be sin; and that Christ has given the church the 
right and power to make a man sin, or to depose him if he will not. It 
is therefore strictly a question of fact. If the Reformers protested 
without cause , it was heresy ; and if they left the church without 
cause, it was schism: if they had cause, then the church of Borne 
was guilty both of heresy and schism. Now, I have, in a long 
series of almost unnoticed expositions, proved that there was cause 
to protest y and necessity to separate: I showed that a Reformation 
had been for along time needed deplorably in faith and morals: the 
latter was acknowledged by all : the Council of Pisa declared the 
former; and the necessity of Reformation became a n article of faith: 
that a false canon of truth, and a false rule of faith and practice were 
forced upon our fathers : that the Pope was a spiritual tyrant and 
usurper of Jesus Christ’s place and authority: that the doctrines of 
grace were universally corrupted, and that all the members of the 


444 


CONTROVERSY. 


church were required to believe these errors, and her ministers to 
preach them ; that they were required to practice gross idolatry in 
the worship of saints, images, relics, and even bread , or be cut off 
from the church ; that force was applied by the inquisition, by cru- 
sades, by censors of the press to compel uniformity, implicit faith, 
and unqualified submission ; that all who disbelieved were in danger 
of the confiscation of their goods, excommunication, interdicts, and 
the stake ; that there was no liberty of conscience ; that even the 
word of God was torn from the people by law ; and that all the 
errors which I have exposed in these letters, were forced upon the 
people and the preachers. Now, if these things were so, it was 
their right, their duty to protest ; and when forced on them, to se- 
parate. Indeed, they had no choice; the church of Rome would 
not let them stay in her communion. Look at John Huss, Jerome 
of Prague, Luther, &c. &c. She burnt the two former ; she sought 
to burn Luther, and failing to do that, excommunicated him ; that is, 
forced him from her. Then I say, it was the right , the duty, the 
necessity of the case to go out of her. But if this be once admitted 
(and I have fully proved it) then they carried their ministerial autho- 
rity with them ; and you might as well say that the Apostles had no 
right to preach after the Sanhedrim silenced them, nor Athanasius 
after the Arian majority of the council deposed him, as to say that the 
church of Rome, under such circumstances, could recal the ministerial 
authority of the Reformers. But still farther ; by her errors, and 
tyranny, and vile immoralities, the church of Rome herself became 
heretical , and was guilty of schism ; she it was who divided Christ’s 
body, and left the true church, as the Arians did in the days of 
Athanasius. The true church depend not on numbers (once it was 
all assembled in an upper chamber in Jerusalem,) but on the holding 
and preaching of God’s truth, and administering Christ’s sacraments 
as he commanded. Besides, millions of God’s people, and hundreds 
of his ministers united with the Reformers, and left the corrupt 
church of Rome. If these things be so, and I have proved them, 
then the deposing of the Reformers was an empty and a wicked act ; 
and therefore they claimed, as they needed no new authority ; they 
had all they required or ever had. 2. On your own principles, the 
act of ordination leaves ‘ an indelible character .’ The Council of 
Trent, session 23, canon 4. decreed ‘ that a character is impressed 
(by ordination) and that he who was once a priest can never become 
a layman again.’ Hence, you hold that the acts of a person ordain- 
ed, though a heretic, are valid ; though cut off, deposed, and even an 
atheist, he is still indelibly a minister of Jesus, and his acts are still 
valid, and he begets a like character to his own or the ordained per- 
sons, and though both parties sin in the act, yet the act is valid. If 
so, the Reformers did not lose their indelible character, and they had 
power to communicate the same to others. Therefore, what you 
gave them you could not take away, on your own principles. 

3. There is not a church on the globe in which the ordination of 
ministers is so defective as the church of Rome. 1. You call orders 
a ‘ sacrament .’ But there is nothing in its nature like a sacrament ; 
not one word in all the New Testament to rest it on. I defy you 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


445 


to bring one text , or one fact to prove it. 2. Priests in your church 
are ordained to offer up Jesus Christ in the mass, and you say, ‘ it 
is the chief business of a Priest to offer sacrifice .’ Yet I have proved 
in my last letter, and you have not disputed one of the points, that 
this sacrifice is blasphemous, anti-christian, and unfounded. Your 
chief business , therefore, for which you are ordained, does not ex- 
ist. You might just as well, for all the ends of ordination, ordain 
a man to search for the philosopher’s stone, or to find out perpetual 
motion. The business of Aaron’s priesthood was to offer up sacri- 
fices, but of Christ's ministers to 4 preach the word,’ to publish sal- 
vation, to administer his true sacraments ; to serve (not lord it over) 
but serve the church, and seek to save the world. 3. The manner 
of ordination in your church is grossly heathenish, and wholly unlike 
the simple 4 laying on of the hands of the Presbytery,* (1 Tim. iv. 
14.) practised in primitive days. A more unmeaning mummery can 
hardly be invented or conceived. 

4. And then you have seven orders of ministers. Now there is 
not one word for all these in the Bible; and you know it full well. 

5. The ordination of your church is wrapped in utter uncertainty. 

I refer, in proof of this, to my discussion in this Letter on 4 inten- 
tion.’ I refer again to my Letter, No. XXVIII. where it is shown 
that the Papal succession cannot be made out; that is, never existed: 
and that you do not, to this day, know, nor can you know, a false 
from a true Pope. Yet your ordination hangs on his button, and 
distils through his polluted hands. 

Your only reply to this was — that try in vain to break the golden 
chain which connects the chair of St. Peter with the present Pope ! 
Finally, see what your own Baronius (on the famous page 766 of 
10th vol.) makes Segebert say from Auxilius. 4 Auxilius writes a 
dialogue under the persons of Infensor and Defensor, confirmed by 
divine and canonical examples, against the intestine discord of the 
church of Rome, forsooth concerning the ordinations, and ex-ordina- 
tions, and super-ordination, of the Popes ; and of the ex-and super- 
ordination of those ordained by them.’ In such giving, recalling, 
and confounding ordinations by false Popes and true, who could be 
certain of his scrip or staff? Who could tell whether the Pope who 
authorized his ordination, or the Pope who recalled it, was the true 
Pope ? Yet in divers cases after one Pope was deposed, or died, his 
ghostly successor nullified all his acts of ordinations ; and, in return, 
on his removal, his acts of ordination were thus treated. And for 
fifty years there were two reigning Popes, one at Avignon and one 
at Rome, who excommunicated and anathematized, and deposed each 
other, and all their respective followers ; and of whom we can say 
this good thing at least, that they always spake truth when they de- 
nounced each other. But under such circumstances, who can unravel 
the riddle of this mangled subject ; or trace his ordination with any 
certainty through this Cretan labyrinth ? 

Before, therefore, you question our authority to preach, look better 
to your own ; and let your holy lives, your faithful preaching, your 
success in saving souls, be added as the living seals to your ministe- 
rial authority. If you can make your own out, we have all that you 


446 


CONTROVERSY. 


ever had. But since the Reformation, it is a grave, and to say the 
least, a debateable question, whether yours is a church of God at all. 
God said to his people at that day, ‘ come out of her f and they 
came. Jerusalem had her Pella; the church of Rome, had the Re- 
formation. Let God’s people come out of her. He who returns to 
her ‘ loves darkness rather than light.’ 

Y. Your exceptions to my twofold answers to your first, second, 
and third questions, need scarcely any additional notice. The in- 
quiry, as to the existence of Protestantism before Luther, and where , 
and when , (besides my previous replies) may thus be finally settled. 
You admit that the doctrines taught by the Apostles, and recorded in 
the Bible, are true Christianity — so do I. We both also allow that 
these doctrines have been, according to Christ’s promise to his church, 
held and taught by the true church ever since. Then if your present 
doctrines contradict the Bible, at every step, and if ours harmonize 
with it, it follows, that we are the true church, and that our doctrines 
have been taught and held in every age. But I have proved this at 
large, as to both faith, and morals, and worship ; I have showed the 
Pope to be a usurper ; that ‘ indulgences were a bundle of licenses to 
commit sin,’ and that heaven is set up for sale by them ; I have ex- 
posed the anti-christian and idolatrous character of Transubstantia- 
tion, the sacrifice of the Mass, and adoration of the Host ; — I have 
disproved purgatory, extreme unction, your false doctrine of human 
merits, and priestly absolution : I have proved that sheer idolatry, 
immoralities the most gross, persecution, the destruction of personal, 
religious, and civil liberty, crusades, inquisitions, &c. involving the 
murder of some 50,000,000 of men, women and children, were not 
only tolerated, but made lawful and necessary in your church ; in a 
word, I have showed, that your church has corrupted the very Bible 
itself, by spurious books, false interpretations, and unfounded tradi- 
tions, and even dared to say that God’s word would, and did injure 
his creatures, and prohibited it to the people. In contrast with all 
this, I have presented the Protestant doctrines, and morals, and wor- 
ship, as harmonizing with the word of God. Now if this has indeed 
been made out (as I think it has) then it follows, that the Protestant 
religion was taught by the Apostles, and of course has been held by 
the true church in every age; whereas your doctrines were not taught 
by the Apostles; are novelties and corruptions ; and the true 
church never did, does not, and cannot hold them. My argu- 
ments, for many letters, have borne steadily on the accumulative 
proof of this position ; and, if well founded, the conclusion is 
irresistible. As to Protestant unity , I stated that the various 
denominations mentioned in my last letter, were more united 
with each other, than the Papal church in successive ages. I 
stated also, that the twelve Confessions of Faith issued at the 
Reformation all presented essential and wonderful unity. The 
fact that they were many and yet agreed , without trick or force, 
is far better proof of honest and real unity, than the forced uni- 
formity of all your people in the one creed ; and as these twelve 
creeds agree in the truth , and as your people agree in error, so 
their unity is Christian unity, but yours, like that of Jews or 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


447 


Mohammedans, if ever so great, being unity in error, is the 
more dangerous. Again, if any one of the many Protestant com- 
munions be a true church, my argument against you is still sound 
and good ; and those in error may be reformed. But if you are 
wrong, it is not only universal heresy, but a desperate one. For, 
as you claim to be infallible, so you are incapable of Reformation, 
and the case is without remedy. The Bible foreshows in lines 
clear as light, that your church must be destroyed, for she re- 
jects reform, and is therefore incurable. The Jews themselves 
shall be recovered, 4 and grafted in again but the church of 
Rome 4 shall be cutoff'.’ Who can read the 11th chapter of 
Romans, or the 2d chapter of 2 Thess. or the book of Revela- 
tions, and doubt that the church of Rome is to be cast off*? It 
is a curious fact, that in Malta, and even Rome itself, it is a 
common opinion (n6t an article of faith) that the present will be 
the last Pope. Prophecy travails in the speedy dissolution of 
the Papal dominion. 

VI. I promised in my last letter to say something of the sects and variations of 
your church. These are subjects replete with matter, and require volumes for 
their elucidation. Since the Council of Trent, and especially since the Reforma- 
tion which tore the jewel from the Pope’s crown, and delivered better than half of 
Europe from his dominion, and poured a flood of light on the world, necessity and 
growing weakness have compelled more union ; and the progress of the Reforma- 
tion has shed its twilight even on the Vatican. Thus, in self-defence some ex- 
cesses have been reformed, and more union engendered. But look at the church 
before the Reformation ; yea, look at her parties and opinions even now. It is 
not agreed to this day, which are the general councils, there are parties on this 
subject ; nor whether the Pope be infallible ; nor where infallibility is lodged ; nor 
whether the Pope has power over both swords, to depose princes, &c. &c. ; nor 
whether all the human race were born in original sin ; nor in what the true con- 
secrating act in Transubstantiation consists ; nor in what the matter and essence 
of the sacrifice of the Mass consists ; nor what the infallible Traditions are ; nor 
whether the Pope be above a Council, or a Council above the Pope ; all these 
have their parties in the church of Rome at this day. It is true, (as at the coun- 
cil of Trent,) where they cannot agree, they call them opinions ; and where they 
can, doctrines . But this is absurd. On this plan, the Protestant communions, 
named in my last Letter, are now more united, than the present church of Rome. 
But again, if we ascend into earlier days we shall find old Rome and new, far, far 
at odds. The Council of Nice, A. U. 325, put the Pope on a level with the other 
leading Bishops; and Pope Gregory called the title of Universal Bishop, (not as 
Mr. Hughes says, in the Bishop of Constantinople’s, but in any hands,) the mark 
of anti-christ. Now, the Pope is universal monarch, and head of all Bishops. Is 
not this a vast variation 1 The Council of Laodicea decreed, “ we ought not to 
leave the church of God, and go to invoke angels, (Angeli.) But as this directly 
forbids what the Council of Trent directly commands ; so it has been changed to 
read, Anguli -corners ; i. e. 1 worship corners .* By this, and other forgeries and 
erasures, H. Boxhorn, Professor of Divinity, at Loraine, had his eyes opened, and 
left the church of Rome forever. (See his 3d book, de Euch.) The church of 
Rome once gave the cup to the laity in the communion, now she takes it away ; 
once she and all the church prayed in the known tongue of the people, and Paul 
expressly forbids an unknown tongue, unless accompanied by an interpreter. 
(See I Cor. xiv.) Once too, the Bible in the church of Rome was in the known 
tongue of the people, and open to all. Now the church-prayers and Bible, are in 
the unknown tongue , and the church curses those who condemn it. There have 
been four different systems of infallibility, at different times and places: 1. That 
of the Pope ; 2, that of the Council ; 3, the Pope and Council ; 4, that the uni- 
versal church was the seat of infallibility. There have been also three systems as 


448 


CONTROVERSY. 


to the nature of the Pope’s supremacy : 1, a Presidency ; 2, a Monarch ; 3, a God 
on earth. There have been three systems of image worship: 1, Their use as a 
help to devotion : 2, the lower worship of them : 3, the same worship of them as 
of the originals represented by them. And three periods as to Priests’ marriage : 
1, It was allowed ; 2, forbidden under Gregory VII. ; 3, preference of fornication 
to it, and permission to keep concubines. Also there are now three parties as to 
the doctrine of celibacy : 1. That it is a divine interdict ; 2, only a human institu- 
tion, though binding and good ; 3, (as now in France,) that celibacy is useless 
and injurious. Once the church of Rome gave the Eucharist to infants as neces- 
sary to their salvation ; now she forbids it. Once she held the doctrine of the 
millennium ; afterwards she stoutly rejected it. In these two last she not only 
varied, but on one side or other must have erred. Now is not this the very 
essence of variation, and party dissensions in the bosom of the 1 toman church 1 
She boasts of never changing, and Jerome says (Prsef. to Evang.) ‘What 
changes is not true; verum non esse quod variat. Was there ever such versatility 
and variation 1 Yet this is the unchangeable church, reigning in the eternal city. 
Finally, once confession of sin was public in the church of Rome, and the peni- 
tent was referred for pardon to God. Now the priest pardons, and to him con fes- 
sion is made in private. He is now like a common sewer, the depository of all 
the sins of all his people. What an effect must it produce on ihe priest’s soul, 
and what a power does it give him over other men, and then he must keep every 
villain’s secret, and pardon the villain confessing. The questions asked at con- 
fession, are enough to ruin a chaste mind. I wish you would publish them. I 
have a list of them in Spanish ; but I dare not render them into Knglish. Even 
‘The Christian’s Guide,’ published by Mr. Cummiskey, Philadelphia, and in use 
here, under the Bishop’s approval, contains in its ‘ Table of sins,’ such matter, as 
no man should, on any account, permit his child to see, and which no lady ought 
to read, much less use in confession. Yet the penitent is directed to consult this 
very ‘table of sins,’ in preparation for confession ; and at it to confess all her sins. 

I forbear to publish this horrible catalogue. 

VII. I had desired to say something of the effects of the reformation, in 
proof of its divine origin and intrinsic excellence. Whoever would be truly in- 
formed on this subject, should read “ Villers on the Reformation,” lately reprinted 
in this city by Messrs. Key & Biddle, in the Christian Library. We may read 
the influence of the Reformation in the history of Spain contrasted with Hol- 
land, Italy with England, Portugal with Scotland, or Mexico and the South 
American States with our own happy country. Here in broad extent and for 
successive generations, the two systems have been exhibited in their practical 
effects. The first named state in each of the above contrasts, is Papal, the last 
Protestant. And now, where is most freedom, most happiness, most moral dignity, 
most science, most national greatness! We are indebted to the Reformation 
under God, for the rights of conscience, for civil liberty, for the revival of let- 
ters in chief part, and for the circulation of the Bible for the virtue and piety of 
the people, and the eternal salvation of innumerable souls. The love of power is 
the very genius of the papacy, and it rises on the ruins of holiness, light and li- 
berty. In our country as elsewhere, the liberties of the people must expire with 
the general prevalence of Fopery. But it is impossible it should prevail if Pro- 
testants are only true to their master, and to their principles. We glory in the 
principles of universal toleration. Truth wants no help but its own power, di- 
rected by the hand of its author. It must finally triumph ; it will at last prevail. 
Magna est veritas, and prsevalebit. 

In my imperfect efforts to assert its evidences, and to vindicate its sacred doc- 
trines, I have at every step felt my own unfitness for so great a work ; and 
should never have ventured to assume such a task, had it not been forced upon 
me. — During the progress of this discussion, I have been absent from home 
half the time; and during the whole, engaged in an arduous and perplexing agen- 
cy. I say this not for my own, but the cause’s sake. But I have done what 
I could. As the second limit set to the time for continuing the controversy has 
now been reached, the future renewal, or final close of the discussion, will be 
referred to the decision of my Rev’d opponent. 


Joax Breckinridge, 


449 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c, 

P. S. I have but a few words to say in answer to your Postscript. It will be 
perceived that the first five assertions are admitted to be correctly quoted from Ba- 
ronius, as you do not give us a word to the contrary. That this silence arises 
from inability, rather than want of will, to prove their incorrectness, is too evi- 
dent to those who observe how eagerly you catch at a straw in endeavouring 
to disprove the sixth. It avails you nothing to object, that the quotation is given 
as a continuous passage, and therefore ‘unfair,’ when our readers know, and you 
know, that I referred for it to two folio pages, 765, 766. The only question is, 
Is every fact contained in this passage proved to have been stated by Baro- 
nius ? For an answer to this question, I am willing to appeal to any man, who 
has a competent knowledge of the original, and whose judgment is not pervert- 
ed by sectarian influence. Let any such man read the proofs I gave in the Post- 
script to my last letter, compare them with the context in the original, and then 
say whether the facts I have stated on the authority of Baronius are not fully 
made out by reference to the ages quoted. Whether it was, or was not, the opi- 
nion of Baronius, that ‘ God had forgotten the (Roman Catholic) church’ is a mat- 
ter of very little importance, while the facts which he states, clearly prove that 
such was the case, as I have shown in my last; and the object of your call, as 
well as the point of my proof, was the depravity of the Popes. On this you said 
you would expose me. It is rather amusing to see, to what a pitiful shift you are 
driven, to disprove the sixth assertion quoted from Baronius, ‘ that the church 
was governed by strumpets.’ Have you forgotten that you stated in your ‘Notes’ 
left at the Athenseum, that Albertus ‘ could expel lawful Popes, and put in usur- 
pers, just as his mistress directed V Was not the church then governed by a 
strumpet? But while ringing your changes on the word arbitrio, did you for- 
get, or think your readers would forget, that I quoted from Baronius, such une- 
quivocal expressions as ‘ cum Romos dominaiientur. ...?nere£rices’ when strum* 
pets govern ki) Rome — ‘ cum Theodora. ..scortum MO'sxnc.niA-yi...obtiveret in urbe’, 
when Theodora a strumpet held sum oik control in the city — ‘ invaluit mer - 
etricum impkrium,’ the sovereignty of strumpets prevailed ! Will you please 
to construe these expressions word for word, as you have meretricum arbitrio in - 
famari ? 

But now I come to the very essence of your Postscript. You tell your rea- 
ders that this quotation was made by me ‘under the threat of exposure! !* 
and intimate that it would have been much more ‘unfair,’ if it had not been 
made under such awful circumstances ! ‘ Risum teneatis, amici ?' I fear 1 shall be 
set down as one under the guilt of mortal sin, and destitute of all grace ; but truth 
compels me to confess, that from the beginning of this controversy, to the pre- 
sent time, I have not for a moment had the fear of the Rev. John Hughes, nor of 
his 4 Lord God the Pope,’ before my eyes! No, Sir, I thank my God, that the 
time is not yet come, and it is my grand object in this controversy to keep that 
day far off, when the ‘threat’ of a Roman priest can make me tremble for my 
reputation, my liberty, or my hopes of heaven. Even the Bulls of your master 
become very harmless animals, when sent to pasture on our happy soil. Your ar- 
rogant and impotent threats only show what you would do, if you could. 

“ 0, tua cornu 

Ni foret exsecto frons, quid faceres quum 
Sic mutilus minitaris ?” — Hor. 

“ If you can threaten now, what would you do, 

Had not the horn been rooted out, that grew » 

Full in thy front?” . J. B. 


3 L 


CONTROVERSY. No. XXXV. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION THE RELIGION OF CHRIST 1 

Philadelphia , October Si l, 1833 . 

To the Rev. John Breckinridge, 

Rev. Sir: By a note received from the Editor of the Presby- 
terian, I am informed that your letter closed the controversy, 
and this communication is admitted by the courtesy of the edi- 
tor, to remove the “ semblance of partiality.” Of course, I am 
bound to acknowledge this courtesy, and I shall avail myself of 
it, simply for the purpose of correcting the erroneous statements 
of your last letter. 

1. You charge me as follows — “You asserted that the Bible 
was not a sufficient rule of faith, though God revealed it for 
that very end : next you contended that it had no fixed meaning 
without an authoritative interpretation : then, you conceded that 
if left to itself, it did not teach the doctrines of Papacy ; and 
finally, you almost abandon its use and retreat to the forlorn 
hope of the Fathers.” 

Every sentence in this statement is a misrepresentation. In 
the first place, I never said that God had appointed the Bible 
for the “ very end” that it might be the sufficient or only rule 
of faith. On the contrary, the errors and opposite doctrines 
which Protestants deduce from it, are the proof that God did 
not appoint it exclusively for this end. If he had, it would be 
understood in the same sense by all — since God cannot be the 
author of those contradictory doctrines which Protestants profess to 
find in the Bible. 

2. I never said that the Bible “has no fixed meaning without 
an authoritative interpretation.” But I said, and argued, that 
without an authoritative interpretation, men cannot be assured 
of what that “fixed meaning” is. Because, (as we see among 
Protestants,) Unitarians, Universalists, See. &c. have as good a 
right to charge their errors to the Bible as the Presbyterians 
themselves. Every one has the right to unfix the true meaning 
of the Bible and substitute his own favorite folly, error, opin- 
ion, and fanaticism. This is what I said, what I supported, 
and I think, established under the head of the rule of faith. 

3. I never said that the Bible does not teach the Catholic doc- 
trines, “if left to itself.” Left to itself, it is “the Bible on 
the shelf” — and teaches nothing. Rightly interpreted, it teaches 
Catholicity — Wrongly interpreted , it is made to teach a thousand 
doctrines, which it does not contain — Calvinism, Socinianism, 
or any other ism , which the interpreter, for the time being, may 
happen to prefer. 

4. I have not abandoned the use of the Scriptures for the 
testimony of the Fathers. On all the questions I have shown 

that the Scriptures and the Fathers spoke the same language 

that the doctrines of Catholicity are supported by the testimony 
of both ; and that the opinions of Protestantism are not drawn 

450 


451 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

from the Bible, but from the Protestant mode of interpreting 
the Bible, of which the Fathers knew nothing. 

Finally, you would make me say that the Bible is a “nose of 
wax,” a “shoe that fits any foot,” &c. &c. To all which I re- 
ply, that the Protestant rule of interpretation makes of the Bible 
just whatever the interpreter thinks proper. This you did not 
deny, but thought to account for, by saying that such interpre- 
tation is the ‘‘ abuse of the Bible.” It is, at all events, the 
Protestant rule of faith, as I have had occasion to show under 
the first question. I have no hesitation in stating that, accord- 
ing to the use which Protestants make of it, the Bible may be 
called a musical instrument, on which every sect of Protestants 
may play its own favorite tune. Which sect is right? Who 
can tell — when all have the same patent of interpretation, and 
each claims the Bible in opposition to all the rest? Who is to 
decide among them? 

Having thus corrected your misstatement, and misrepresenta- 
tion of my arguments, I shall follow you to your next twofold 
position — which “ you think the community are prepared to 
admit,” viz : 1. That J depend far more on the Fathers than 
on the Bible : and, 2. That their “ unanimous consent,” if it 
has a being, is by no means in my favour.” 

To the first of these positions I answer, that the Catholic 
doctrine is established on the evidence of the Scripture — the 
attestations of the Fathers — the testimony of all the ancient 
Liturgies^ of the heretics themselves — the testimony of the Sy- 
rian Christians, (whom you once called “Protestants,”) — of the 
Greek church — of all the eastern sects — in fine, of all Chris- 
tians, from the preaching of Christ, to the days of Martin Lu- 
ther. And, this being the case , it follows, that either “ the Pro- 
testant religion is not the religion of Christ,” or else, that the 
religion of Christ had no professors in the world before the 
days of Martin Luther. All this accumulated testimony shows 
that the Catholic doctrines were the doctrines of the Bible, 
down to the sixteenth century ; and that no Christians, in the 
whole world , understood the Bible to teach the doctrines which 
Protestants profess to find in it. 

As to the “UNANIMOUS CONSENT,” it is undeniable. 
You find that all, who speak on the doctrines now disputed be- 
tween Catholics and Protestants, are clear and unequivocal in 
their testimony in our favour. They do not indeed, always speak 
equally clear. But whilst you may cite passages that are 06- 
scure , and which, by themselves, might harmonize with either 
doctrine , I have cited others, which settle the matter of their 
belief — on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist — the 
sacrifice of the Christian Liturgy, called the mass — the invoca- 
tion of saints — prayers for the dead — purgatory — fasting — sign 
of the cross — supremacy of St. Peter, and his successors in the 
visible government of Christ’s church upon earth; and, in short, 
of all the doctrines which the innovators of the sixteenth cen- 
tury have rejected. These testimonies, clear and unequivocal \ 


452 


CONTROVERSY. 


may be found in the quotations of my last two letters, taken 
from the writings of the Fathers — both before the Council of 
Nice, and after , for the first five hundred years of the Christian 
church. Neither were they of one country alone, but taken in- 
discriminately from Asia, Europe, and Africa. You seem to 
admit that there is no way of evading their powerful testimony 
on these matters, except by a grammatical quibble on the word, 
“unanimous consent.” Taking it for granted that there are 
exceptions, you infer that these exceptions destroy the force of 
the rule. The great body of testimony must go for nothing, 
provided that, by the distortion of his language, you can make 
it appear that any one Father disagreed from the rest. In fact 
you cannot find such disagreement. All have not, it is true, 
expressed themselves equally plain ; nor have the same Fathers, 
in all the parts of their works ; but when so great a number of 
them have expressed themselves so clearly and so strongly in 
attestation of the Catholic doctrines, as they still exist in the 
church, the “consent” of all is rendered “ unanimous,” by the 
acquiescence of the rest. 

We do not profess to receive our belief from the Fathers, as 
if they were the authors of it. They are only the channel through 
which it descended, but the fountain is Jesus Christ. They are 
the witnesses of what was the belief of the church, at the times 
when they lived and wrote. And as Protestants pretend that the 
primitive church believed as they do, we quote the Fathers to 
show, on the contrary, that the belief of the church was then 
what Catholics still hold. Thus, Reverend Sir, you appealed to 
the Fathers; and having selected the tribunal, one should sup- 
pose that you would consent to be judged by it.. But no. The 
moment I furnish their verdict, you attack their authority, and 
say that their writings have been “erased and Romanized! ! ” 
Then why did you appeal to them ? But the Fathers have been 
recognized by the University of Oxford ; and is it possible, that 
the learned body of Protestants who presided at their publica- 
tion, would palm on the world writings which have been “ erased 
and Romanized?” Again, how could the church “erase and 
Romanize” these writings in the hands of her enemies? They 
have been preserved by the various sects of heretics, separated 
from the communion of the church, some of them, since the 
very days of the Fathers. They have been preserved by the 
Greek Schismatics — would they suffer their copies to be u erased 
and Romanized ?” Does not the fact of your having uttered 
this charge, under your present circumstances in this controver- 
sy, imply the consciousness, that the Fathers are against you— 
whilst the charge itself is refuted by its own absurdity ? 

Mr. B., after all these expedients resorted to — for the purpose of 
sustaining his cause, with great apparent gravity makes a new asser- 
tion, and tells us that....“ the higher we rise in antiquity, the more 
decidedly Protestant do they (the Fathers) become, until the last 
traces of Romanism disappear amidst the better light of the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers.” Does Mr. B. imagine that the quotations of my 
last letter, taken from the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers are 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


453 


to be overturned by empty declamation, and mere assertion, without 
the least proof ? Does he suppose that those proofs, which are un- 
deniable, are already forgotten by our readers ? In reference to the 
authorities quoted by him, and which I had occasion to expose, he 
assures us that nothing unfair, was done by him, “ to his knowledge” 
He then, no doubt, copied from others, who wrote for Protestants 
only , and whose false or garbled quotations, passed unexposed, and 
even unsuspected. It was on this account, at an early stage of the 
controversy, I advised him to beware of his quotations ; and it is 
but a poor plea for the false quotations which he has since put on 
record, to say now that, indeed, it was not done “ to his knowledge.” 
As an offset, however, he arraigns me in connexion with the autho- 
rities quoted by me from Tertullian, Wesley, Luther, and Jewell. 
Now I refer the reader to the particular passages, in which I quoted 
from these writers, and he will see that you, Rev’d Sir, revive a 
charge, which was promptly resented, and triumphantly refuted in 
each particular instance. Such charges come with a bad grace from 
you, inasmuch as they are not only unfounded, but have been already 
refuted. Of Tertullian’s, you may recollect that you misrepresented 
the object for which it was adduced as a proof — and that the charge 
of garbling was refuted by my correcting your misrepresentation of 
my argument. Of Wesley, I proved, from his own writings, all I 
had asserted. Of Luther, the same. Of Jewell, I spoke on the 
strength of authorities which you did not dispute. These being the 
facts of the case, our readers will not be imposed upon by your gra- 
tuitous charge against me, of garbling, mistranslations, perversions, 
and false assertions of authorities ; — charges, which have been not 
only preferred, but undeniably established against yourself. 

Not less curious is the manner in which you allude to my proofs 
of Christ’s real presence in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist. 
You had pretended that the Protestant doctrine could be found, at 
least in the LITURGIES of the ancient Heretics of the East ; as 
if men could not err from the unity of Christ’s religion, without 
necessarily falling into the Protestant doctrines. Now I have shown 
the belief of the Catholic church on all the doctrines that appertain 
to the Liturgy, viz. : The sacrifice of the Eucharist — the real pre- 
sence of Christ’s body and blood, after the consecration, under the 
appearance of bread and wine ; the priesthood of the new law ; the 
altar, the victim, in the unbloody manner — the invocation of 
saints ; — the sacrifice and prayer for the dead, as well as the living. 
Such is the testimony of these neutral documents, which are neither 
Catholic nor Protestant, but which, being preserved by the enemies 
of the Catholic church , from the very first ages of Christianity, must 
be received by all candid men, as unimpeachable vouchers for the 
primitive belief of Christians, on these points. For, these sects 
would not borrow their liturgy, after the separation, from their ene- 
mies, the very church which had excommunicated them. Conse- 
quently, the liturgies and the doctrines which they contain are to be 
referred to a date anterior to the separation. They all agree with 
the Catholic church; and it must be this conviction, and the argu- 
ment which it furnishes, that have obliged my opponent, after having 




CONTROVERSY. 


claimed these liturgies for the Protestant side, a few letters since, to 
shrink now from their withering testimony against him, and tell the 
public that, indeed, 44 every scholar knows them to be replete with 
forgeries of the Church of Rome ! ! !” Why then did he claim 
them ? And having claimed them, without knowing their contents, 
why now does he make a bad cause worse, by charging them with 
“ forgery ?” 

He then turns to a new question and says they were not written 
by the authors to whom they are ascribed. This is nothing to the 
purpose. It is known that the first liturgies were not, for a long 
time, committed to writing at all . And the name of St. Cyprian, 
in the liturgy ascribed to St. Peter, is no proof that the substance of 
it, as relates to the Eucharistic sacrifice , had not been taught by St. 
Peter. The Scriptures furnish a case in point. The Book of Deu- 
teronomy is ascribed to Moses, yet the last chapter contains an ac- 
count of his death and burial, which shows that this part was writ- 
ten by some other. 'Phis turning away from the doctrine to the au- 
thorship of the liturgies, is in keeping with all the rest. But the 
implicit acknowledgment of all the documents of antiquity being 
adverse to Protestantism, is easily gathered from your charges of 
“ forgery,” “ erasure and Romanizing,” and the interrogatory with 
which the whole winds up, “ who then can trust your testimonies ?” 

After having established the Catholic belief, by arguments founded 
on the testimony of the Holy Scripture ; by the very incredulity of 
the Jews at Capharnaum when the doctrine was first proposed ; by 
the plain and positive words of the Redeemer, in the institution of 
the Sacrament ; by the testimony of St. Paul, who warned the Chris- 
tians against the sin of eating or drinking the body and blood of the 
Lord unworthily ; by the testimony of the apostolic Fathers, Igna- 
tius in particular, who states that the Heretics of that age abstained 
from the Eucharist, because they would not acknowledge it to be the 
“ flesh of Christ;” by the unanimous consent of the Fathers, both 
before and after the Council of Nice; by the very testimony of the 
enemies of the Catholic church, the Greek schismatics and heretics 
of the East generally ; b) T all the liturgies in the world, before the 
days of Carlostadius, with whom the Protestant doctrine of mere 
bread and wine began : — after all this, to which no positive testimony 
has been opposed, it is curious, I say, to perceive the tone of non- 
chalance with which you introduce “ my last, and feeble struggle for 
transubstantiation !” Do you suppose. Rev. Sir, that this manner 
of affecting to see no strength in evidences which you cannot deny, 
and arguments which you cannot answer, will not be duly apprecia- 
ted by the intelligence of our readers ? Do you suppose that such a 
mass of testimony is to be outweighed, in the public mind, by your 
naked assertion < 

You say, that it is I who profit 44 by insulated sentences” from the 
Fathers, and that 44 if their writings could be presented in unbroken 
connexion, the argument against me would appear in tenfold strength.* 
Then, Rev. Sir, it was your business to give pome specimens of this 
“ unbroken connexion.” But let us test the truth of your ipse dixit * 
even on this. St. Chrysostom is one of those, whom Protestants 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


455 


are pleased to claim as friendly to their opinions. Allow me, then, 
to give an extract from a sermon which he preached at Antioch in 
the year 386, (Horn. 61.) and mark well its doctrine 

“ It is necessary, my dear brethren, to learn what is the miracle, 
wrought in our mysteries, why it has been given to us, and what 
profit we ought to derive from it? We are all but one body, the 
members of his flesh and bones. Let us who are initiated, follow 
what I am about to say. In order then that we may be mixed up 
with the flesh of Jesus Christ, not only by love, but really and truly, 
he has given the food that effects this prodigy, being desirous thus 
to manifest the love he bears us. For this purpose he has mixed 
and incorporated himself in us, in order that we might form but 
one with him, in the same manner as the members form but one body, 
being all united to the same head. In fact, those who wish to love 

tenderly, always wish to be but one with the object of their love 

Wherefore, like lions which inhale and breathe forth flames, let us 
leave this table, having ourselves become formidable to the devil, re- 
flecting on our head, and the love he has so wonderfully and mani- 
festly shown us. Mothers not unfrequently put out their children 
to be nursed by strangers, ‘ but I, says he, (Christ) feed my children 
with my own flesh : I myself am their food : for it is my desire to 
ennoble you all, and to give you an earnest of future blessings. Giv- 
ing myself to you, as I do, in this world, I shall be able, with much 
more reason, to treat you still better in the other. I wished to be- 
come your brother, for you I have taken flesh and blood ; and now , 
moreover, I give you this flesh and blood by which l am become of 
the same nature with yourselves.’ This blood produces in us a bril- 
liant and royal image : it prevents the nobleness of the soul from 
suffering, when it frequently sprinkles and nourishes it.. ..This blood 
is spread through the soul, as soon as drunk : it waters and fortifies 
it. This blood, when worthily received, puts the devil to flight : it 
invites and introduces to us the angels and the Lord of the angels.... 
This blood, being shed, washed and purified the world.. ..And if in 
the capital of Egypt, the symbol of this blood, being merely sprin- 
kled on the door-posts, possessed such virtue and efficacy, the truth 

and reality is infinitely more efficacious If death so much feared 

the figure and the shadow, how much, let me ask you, will it not 
fear the reality ?,...Thus every time we partake of this body and 
taste this blood, let us think that HE who sitteth in heaven and whom 
the angels adore, is the selfsame whom we taste and receive here 
below.” 

“ But what! Do you not see that these vessels, upon the altar, are of dazzling 
brightness and purity ? Our souls ought to be still more resplendent with purity 
and sanctity. And why so ? Because if these vessels are so well polished, it is 
on our account ; they can neither taste nor feel Him whom they contain , but we 
most certainly. 

“ Consider, 0 man ! the royal table is laid out, the angels attend : the King 
himself is present : and thou remainest in a stupid indifference ! Thy garments 
are soiled, and thou carest not? But they are clean, thou wilt say. Well, then, 
adork and communicate.” 

Here is the “ miracle” stated, the caution of the secret discipline removed, be- 
cause he spoke to the “ initiated ” the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, pre- 
sented, “ adored ,” and received in the Eucharist. This is the “ unbroken 


456 


CONTROVERSY, 


connexion,” which you told us is so favourable to the Protestant M bread and 
wine.” This, too, is from one of those Fathers over whose testimony you charged 
me with having passed lightly. Would you venture to preach this doctrine in 
any Protestant pulpit in the city ? The people would stare, for matters have 
changed as regards their mere shadow, of that adorable mystery of the Eucharist, 
which a Chrysostom proclaimed with such fervent eloquence to the people of 
Antioch, 1400 years ago. Pronounced in a Catholic pulpit, however, it would 
be listened to as the ordinary doctrine of the church, which teaches now, as she 
taught when she numbered the Chrysostoms, the Augustines, the Ambroses, the 
Cyrils, the Gregories, the Jeromes, the Cyprians, the Irenseuses, and the other 
lights of primitive Christianity among her disciples, her doctors and defenders, 
against the heresies of wicked men. 

Let us now look into that “ better light of the Ante-Nicene Fathers,” in which 
we are told that the “ last traces of Romanism disappear.” To avoid repetition, 
I request the reader to turn to my last letter, and he will see what Mr. Breckin- 
ridge calls “ Romanism,” strongly asserted in the testimonies of the Ante-Nicene 
Fathers there quoted. But I will add one quotation more, from Justin Martyr, 
who was put to death in the year of our Lord, one hundred and sixty-six. In his 
apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, he says, describing the celebration of 
the mysteries, — “ Our prayers being finished, we embrace one another with the 
kiss of peace. Then to him who presides over the brethren, is presented bread, 
and wine tempered with water, having received which, he gives glory to the Fa- 
ther of all things in the name of the Son and the Holy Ghost, and returns thanks, 
in many prayers, that he has been deemed worthy of these gifts. These offices 
being duly performed, the whole assembly, in acclamation, answers, Amen ; when 
the ministers, whom we call Deacons, distribute to each one present a portion of 
the blessed bread, and the wine and water. Some is also taken to the absent. 
This food we call the Eucharist, of which they alone are allowed to partake, who 
believe the doctrines taught by us, and who have been regenerated by water for 
the remission of sins, and who live as Christ ordained. Nor do we take these 
gifts as common bread, and common drink *, but as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, 
made man, by the word of God, took flesh and blood for our salvation : in the 
same manner, we have often been taught that the food which has been blessed by 
the prayer of the words which he spake, and by which our blood and flesh, in 
the change, are nourished, is the flesh axe clood of that Jesus incarnate. 
The Apostles in the commentaries written by them, which are called Gospels, 
have delivered, that Jesus so commanded, when taking bread, having given thanks, 
he said : ‘ Do this in remembrance of me : This is my body.’ In like manner, 
taking the cup, and giving thanks, he said : ‘ This is my blood and that he dis- 
tributed both to them only.” (Apol. 1. p. 95. London Edit. 1722.) 

This testimony was given about half a century after the death of St. John the 
Evangelist, and it is so strongly Catholic, that no Protestant would dare to repeat 
it in his pulpit, except as “ one of the errors of Popery.” I might multiply quota- 
tions from the Fathers, into the extent of a volume. But what I have already 
produced, must suffice, especially as you have nothing positive to oppose them 
with — fori confess that three sentences of St. Justin, St. Ignatius, Tertullian, or 
St. Cyprian, who were the almost immediate successors of the Apostles — three 
sentences from any of these, attesting the real presence of Christ’s flesh in the 
Eucharist, has more authority in my mind, than a thousand letters filled with Mr. 
Breckinridge’s cavils, objections, and assertions. 

On communion under one kind, I refer him to Letter No. XXIX., where I 
showed by arguments, also unanswered, that the same reasoning which would 
make it the right of all to receive under both kinds, would equally make it the 
right of all to consecrate. Until Mr. B. shall have condescended to notice my 
arguments, as I stated them, I shall not consider his objections of mere assertion, 
worthy of further reply. 

Mr. Breckinridge says, that I “ take it for granted, that the only thing concealed 
(by the discipline of the secret,) was the doctrine of the Eucharist.” I never 
said any such thing, nor did I ever take it for granted. This answer will be suf- 
ficient. 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


457 


He says, “ that there is no evidence that the doctrine of the Eucharist was 
among the doctrinal mysteries at all.” Now, with all due deference to Mr. Faber, 
from whom Mr. Breckinridge copies the assertion , I shall show that they are both 
mistaken. St. Augustine, I should suppose, is a better witness than either. 
“ What,” says he, “ is there hidden in the church! The Sacraments of Baptism, 
and the Eucharist. The Pagans see our good works, but not our Sacraments.” 
(I in Psal. 103.) 

Mr. B. says the “ discipline of the secret originated in the second century.” 
Tertullian says in his Apology, “ It is the common law of all mysteries to keep 
them secret.” And common sense shows, that this discipline would have been 
useless, if the Pagans or uninitiated, had, at anytime previously, been acquainted 
with these mysteries. 

Immediately after this, Mr. B. falls into another train of blunders and misrep- 
resentations by following Mr. Stanley Faber. Blandina the slave was tortured to 
make her disclose the “ secret” of the Christian mysteries. She replied, says 
the original, “ libere et scite,” that is, “ freely and prudently ;” which Faber trans- 
lated “freely and boldly.” Irenseus, who relates the affair, was praising the 
constancy of these martyrs, and the prudence of Blandina, who, though a slave,- 
answered so prudently that she betrayed nothing of the Christian mysteries. Mr. 
Faber puts the word “boldly,” instead of “ prudently,” or “ adroitly,” in order to 
make it appear that Blandina had nothing to confess. Mr. Breckinridge follows 
Mr. Faber, and neither, unfortunately for their argument, follows exactly the truth. 

Mr. Breckinridge in reference to this, says, “ these Christians denied from first 
to last that it was literal flesh and blood which was served up to them. Was 
not this,” he asks, “ a denial of the real presence!” Not at all, Rev. Sir — Catho- 
lics believe in the real presence, and in transubstantiation now, as they did when 
Blandina was tortured — and yet they do not say they eat “ literal flesh.” They 
do not, as Mr. B. constantly misrepresents, hold that the flesh of Christ is present 
in the Eucharist, in the natural condition of human flesh. This I have repeated- 
ly explained in the course of these letters. But still he does not hesitate to borrow 
the artifice of Mr. Faber, in order to make the doctrine appear shocking to the 
minds of Protestants. For this, even the purity of our language must be sacrificed, 
to put forth the solicisms of “ literal flesh” and “ literal blood.” The object 
of this is to reflect on Protestant minds, ideas of gross misconception — which will 
operate instead of argument. We never hear of a “ literal ” house, a “ literal ?* 
loaf of bread, or a “ literal ” stage-coach drawn by “ literal ” horses. The word 
“ literal” cannot be applied to a material object. Yet these gentlemen would 
barbarize the language, in order to pervert the doctrine of the Eucharist which 
they cannot refute. [See St. Aug. Be verp Apost. Serm. 2.] 

Mr. B. says I perverted his argument touching the manner of Christ’s entrance 
into the closed apartment where the disciples were. His words, he says, were 
these : — 


* Do you forget that Christ had power 
miraculously to open a passage for his 
body through the door or wall, and close 
it again.' 


I made him say, “ that Christ could 
remove out of the wall or door, space 
for his body to enter by, and then close 
it up again.” 


I willingly submit it to the reader whether I have perverted, or Mr. B. has ac- 
cused me of it, without cause. He then refers to a subject which he ought to 
wish forgotten, and insinuates still that there is a “ prohibition” to read his letters. 
Does he forget, or does he suppose that the public forgets, the manner in which 
he crept out of this false and unfounded charge, by exposing his friend Mr. Burtt 
to the pity, or the contempt of our common readers ! 

Then, as if frightened at the Nestorianism of his former letter, Mr. Breckinridge 
shrinks back from his declaration that “ it was idolatry to worship the body of 
Jesus Christ.” But shunning Nestorianism, he seems to lean to the heresy of 
Eutyches, and tells us that “ the Divinity and humanity are inseparably blended 
in the person of Jesus Christ.” A better theology would have taught him to 
say that the two natures are “inseparably united .” Even at Princeton, I am 
persuaded this distinction would be recognized. He says, that in transubstantia- 
tion we worship the “body alone. ’’ I reply, that when he thus asserts what is 

3 M 


458 


CONTROVERSY. 


untrue , he must expect to be contradicted. We worship Jesus Christ ; his human 
and divine nature being inseparably united in the mystery of the holy Eucharist 
as in that of the Incarnation. 

As to his “ exposures of the sacrifice of mass,” I can see only his assertions for 
them. I have seen no refutation of my arguments and authorities on that subject. 
He casts an imputation on my motives, by calling the sacrifice of mass “ my chief 
gain.” In reply to this indelicate allusion, I have only to repeat, that if I could 
consent to give up my soul for ‘ gain, 5 I should become a Protestant at once. So 
far as the advantages of this world are concerned in the matter, the scale greatly 
preponderates in favour of Protestantism. 

Now we come to ‘ Pope Lib erics . 1 On this, I have only to say, that whether 
he signed the Arian creed or not, is a matter of very little moment to the present 
question. He might have signed it, and yet from the act, none of those awful 
consequences which Mr. Breckinridge is pleased to imagine, must necessarily fol- 
low. Besides even Mr. Breckinridge, whilst he accuses him, ascribes the act to 
compulsion , * through the fear of death.’ Neither was Athanasius condemned, 
even by the Arians, as a Heretic, but only as a disturber of the peace. What Li- 
berius is charged with having done, was not the act of a free agent — since (if 
done at all) it was done ‘through fear of death’ — as even his enemies acknowledge. 
Though this persecuted* Pontiff had done what is charged, you must remember 
that the defect consisted, not in signing a creed in which the Arian heresy was 
approved, but in signing a creed in which that heresy was not expressly condemned. 
The word ‘ consubstantia.1’ of the Nicene Council, was omitted, and this omission 
was used by the Arians as a proof that Liberius had approved their doctrine, which, 
in fact, he condemned, with the sufferings and constancy of a martyr. 

With regard to the Councils of Sirmium and Ariminum, I have only to reply 
as before, that no council acknowledged by the Catholic church, signed the 
Arian creed. None but Mr. Breckinridge could discover in this answer, the 
‘ admission that the said councils did adopt the Arian heresy.’ He can extract 
admission and deduce consequences, no matter what is said. He follows this 
pretended admission to its pretended consequences, and in two or three sen- 
tences makes it appear, that ‘ therefore, it is an article of faith in the Roman 
Church, binding on all her members at this day, that Jesus Christ was not God, 
that his divinity is a figment, and Unitarians are right.’ The Pope signed the 
Catholic council which condemned the Arian heresy ; ‘therefore’ Catholics are 
bound to believe the doctrines — which their church condemned ! ! ! This is 
patent logic. But Mr. Breckinridge is not the first of that race, who 

Without the care of knowing' right from wrong, 

Always appear decisive, clear, and strong, 

Where others toil with philosophic force, 

Their nimble nonsense takes a shorter course. 

Flings at your head conviction in a lump, 

And gains remote conclusions at a jump. 

Next in order, comes the doctrine of ‘ intention,’ in which Mr. Breckin- 
ridge follows the lucubrations of a Mr. Waddle, who has been put on a fair way 
to immortality as an author, by the insertion, in the Catholic Miscellany, and 
triumphant refutation of his — twaddle. On this, also, I repeat, that until Mr. 
Breckinridge can produce some motive or interest, in heaven or on earth, in 
time or in eternity, for a Priest’s setting his mind deliberately in opposition to 
the ‘intention’ of the church, in the administration of the Sacraments, his objec- 
tion is utterly inadmissible. Supposing that Baptism, according to the Presbyterian 
mode is administered, on the stage, in mockery, would the Sacrament be admin- 
istered ) The answer of this will justify the decision of the church, upon this 
point. Luther, in one of the propositions condemned by Leo X. maintained 
that a Sacrament was validly administered even though the Priest did it in jest ; 
{non serio, sedjoco.) 

Against this error, the church renewed, in the council of Trent, the doctrine 
which had been defined before, in the council of Florence in the year 1439, viz, 
that the sacraments should be administered according to the intention of the 
church, or according to the end for which Jesus Christ instituted them. Still* 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


459 

i 

even if a clergyman should intend to cheat the recipient of the sacrament, 
(which is not to be admitted) yet the consequences would not be such as Mr. 
B. so pathetically describes. In one part of his letter, he treats the sacrifice of 
mass as ‘ idolatry in another, he makes the delivery of souls from purgatory 
depend on the validity of this ‘idolatrous’ act! Such, and similar consequences 
does he draw from his own imagination. His objections are founded on his 
ignorance of the Catholic doctrine, or his powers of perverting it. In order, how- 
ever, to show this, let me suppose for argument sake, the particular case which 
he imagines, yet it will not follow, as he pretends, that, according to our doctrine, 
* little children are damned.’ For we do not consign unbaptized infants to 
eternal damnation, as Presbyterians do all except those who ‘profess the true 
religion, and their children.’ Again, in the sacrifice of mass the multitude 
would not ‘ be guilty of idolatry,’ as he pretends ; ‘ for no Catholic teaches 
that the mere external symbols are to be adored.’ (Bellar. Lib. 4. deEuch. c. 29.) 
Neither would ‘the marriage ceremony be invalid,’ as he pretends; nor for 
want of extreme unction, ‘would all who died under their hands be lost for ever.’ 
Ail these are false consequences, which you deduce, not from our doctrine, 
but from ignorance or the misrepresentation of it. But the supposition is not to 
be admitted, seeing that men are not gratuitously wicked ; — and that, for the 
sacriligious wickedness here supposed, there is no motive, in time or in eternity. 

Then comes the ‘popular misrepresentation’ about the ‘liberty of the 
press and the uhq.uisition'.’ Touching these topics, Mr. B. dilates with no 
inconsiderable powers of declamation. But declamation is a sorry expedient in 
grave theological controversy. The church of Rome might be opposed to the 
Liberty of the Press, and yet, it would not follow, as a necessary consequence, 
that ‘the Protestant religion is the religion of Christ.’ Mr. B. should not have 
forgotten the fines and imprisonment enacted by Presbyterians against such as 
should read the Episcopal Common Prayer Book. This fact, among others, 
proves that the church to which he belongs was the tyrannical enemy of the 
Liberty of the Press, when she had power to control it ; and, that she would be 
so again, if she had the power, is the decided conviction of many enlightened 
Protestants in this country. 

As for the committee at Rome, whose prohibition of books, Mr. B. asserts, is 
binding on the whole church,’ I have only to answer, that if he will take pains 
to be informed on the subject, he will find that there are many countries in which 
the prohibitory Index is not acknowledged — for example, France, England, 
Ireland, and our own country. Of course, in saying that he has ‘exposed me? 
it happens that he has only ‘exposed himself.’ 

He says that THE BIBLE is on the prohibitory Index. He should have 
added, in truth and candour, that it is the Protestant Bible , in particular, and 
not the Bible, in general, as his statement would lead the reader to suppose. 
This prohibition is quite natural, when it is recollected that Catholics regard the 
Protestant Bible as a spurious version, mistranslated, and containing only a 
part of the sacred Scriptures. Throughout his letters, Mr. B. has kept up this 
unfounded accusation, that the church is inimical to the pefusalof the sacred Scrip- 
tures. It may be well to state a few facts to show how false is this charge, and 
how groundless is this Protestant clamour, kept up without cause. 

The Catholic church, by whose ministry, and to whose faith, all the nations 
of the earth, that have abandoned Paganism, were converted, has always been 
zealous to disseminate the sacred Scriptures among her children. Witness 
the fact, that so early as the fourth century, St. Augustine testifies that ‘ the 
number of those who had translated the Scriptures from the Hebrew into the 
Greek might be computed, but that the number of those who had translated 
the Greek into the Latin ‘ could not be computed.” At that period, Latin, we 
should observe, was the language of the Western Empire. 

Again, in 1552, when the Maronite Christians returned to the communion of 
the church, under Pope Julius III. a new edition of the Syriac version was printed 
at Vienna, and transmitted to Syria. 

Pope Paul III. in 1548, published at Rome an Ethiopic version of the New 
Testament in Ethiopic, for the use of the Christians. 


460 


CONTROVERSY. 


In 1591, an Arabic version of the whole Bible was published at Rome. And 
in the year 1671, another edition, in three volumes, folio, of the same version, 
from the press of the Propaganda. 

Again, in 1591, an Arabic version of the four Gospels was printed at the 
Medicean press in Rome, for the use of the Arabic Christians in communion 
with the church. 

Even in the Chinese language, notwithstanding it is so difficult and so 
few can read it, a harmony of the four Gospels was prepared by the Jesuits, 
and is mentioned with praise by the British and Foreign Bible Society in their first 
Report. 

The fact is, that as soon as printing was invented, the church availed herself 
of the discovery, for the purpose of multiplying copies of the Scripture in every 
language. Luther’s translation in Germany in 1522 and 1530, had been pre- 
ceded nearly a century, 1. By the Catholic edition of Fust, printed at Mentz in 
1462. 2. By that of Bemler, printed at Augsburg, 1467. And, 3. By the four 

versions which Beausobre mentions in his 4th book of the History of the Re- 
formation. 

The French Protestant version is that of Olivetan, assisted by Calvin, pub- 
lished in 1537. It had been preceded by different Catholic versions. First, the 
New Testament by Julian the Augustinian Monk, printed in 1477. 2. A ver- 
sion of the whole Bible, by Guyards des Moulins, printed 1490. 3. By that of 

Estaple, who printed the New Testament, in 1523, the Old Testament in 1528. 

The Italian Protestant version was printed in 1562. It had been preceded by, 
1, the Catholic version of Malermis, in 1471. 2. By that of Brucciofis, in 1532; 
on which the Protestant translation was generally founded. 

In Belgium, the first Protestant translation was that of Luther, published in 1527. 
It had been preceded by a Catholic version of the four Gospels, printed in 1472; and 
by another Catholic version of the whole Bible, printed at Cologne, in 1475; and 
again at Delft, in 1477; at Gouda, in 1479, and both at Antwerp, in 1518. It is 
useless to extend the testimonies; when it is well known that in Italy alone, and 
with the Pope’s approbation, more than TWENTY editions of the Bible, have 
been published in the vulgar tongue. 

With these facts on historical record, is it not surprising to hear ignorant Protest- 
ants, misleadincr other Protestants yet more ignorant than themselves, by the false 
charge against°the Catholic Church, that she is hostile to the Scriptures'? The 
rules established subsequently, by the church, to regulate the use of the Holy Scrip- 
tures. were dictated by the glaring abuse to which the sacred volume was exposed in 
the hands of the Protestants, during the fanaticism of the Reformation. These 
abuses are acknowledged by learned Protestants, no less than by Catholics. A 
learned minister of the English Protestant Church, describes some of these excesses, 
and accounts for them, as Catholics do, not by charging the Scriptures as the source 
of impiety, but by showing that they are liable to be misunderstood, when left to the 
ignorance and daring rashness of mere private interpretation. As an example, he 
says — “The private judgment of Munzer discovered, in Scripture, that titles of no- 
bility, and large estates were 1 impious encroachments on the natural equality of the 
faithful,’ and he invited his followers to examine the Scriptures whether these things 
were so? They examined — praised God — and proceeded with fire and sword, to 
the extirpation of the ungodly, and the seizure of their property. Private judgment, 
also, thought it discovered, in the Bible, that established laws were ‘ standing re- 
straints on Christian liberty;’ that the ‘ elect were incapable of sinning,’ and might 
‘ innocently obey all the propensities of nature.’ 

“John of Leyden, laying down his thimble, and taking up his Bible, surprised the 
city of Munster, at the head of a rabble of frantic enthusiasts, proclaimed himself 
‘ King of Zion,’ and ran naked through the streets, vociferating that ‘ whatever is 
highest on earth, would be brought low, and whatever is lowest, should be exalted. 1 
To keep his word, he made his common executioner, his minister of state ; and his 
minister of state, his common executioner. Improving on the example of the Patri- 
archs, he ‘ took unto him’ fourteen wives at once, affirming, that ‘ Polygamy was 
Christian liberty, and the privilege of the Saints.’” (Thoughts on the tendency of 
Bible Societies, p. 8.) 

When Europe presented spectacles of this kind, wherever the Reformation pre- 
vailed, and when the actors referred to texts of Scripture for the justification of their 
doctrines and conduct , was it not natural, nay more. I weuld ask. the sober judgment! 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


461 


of Protestants, was it not even wise in the church, to establish regulations for the 
right use of the sacred Scriptures'] But the facts submitted above amply vindicate 
the church from the ignorant and unfounded charge of being hostile to their dissemi- 
nation : even if we had not the express declaration of Pope Pius VI. who, in a let- 
ter to Martini, on his. translation of the Bible into Italian, says: “that the faithful 
should be excited to the reading of the Holy Scriptures ; for these are most abun- 
dant sources which ought to be left open to every one , to draw from them purity of 
morals and of doctrine, to eradicate the errors which are widely disseminated in these 
corrupt times.’’ (See this letter prefixed to every Catholic Bible.) 

If Mr. Breckinridge were better informed, he would know that . the placing of a 
book on the Index at Rome, does not necessarily imply the condemnation of the 
whole work. And if Locke, Milton, Galileo, and so forth, be on the catalogue, it 
is not because the authors were good poets, or philosophers, but because they were 
bad theologians. But l am at no loss to conceive the opinion which the intelligent 
reader will form of my opponent’s acquaintance with the history of literature, when 
he reads the following assertion. “ This is a war of extermination waged by the 
authority of the church against letters, liberty, and conscience!” Thousands of 
learned Protestants, enemies of the church, no less than Mr. Breckinridge, have 
acknowledged, that to the zeal of the church, and to the labours of the monks, the 
world is indebted at this day for the preservation of ancient literature. As for 
“liberty’’ and “conscience,’’ they are words which Mr. Breckinridge plays off, to 
catch the popular sympathy. I contend, and in the course of these letters have 
shown, that “liberty,” and “conscience,” never had a deadlier enemy to struggle 
against, than Presbyterianism in power. Then he appeals to a “ free people as 
if engaged to carry a favourite candidate at an election, instead of furnishing argu- 
ments to show that “ the Protestant Religion is the Religion, of Christ.” 

Next follows his attacks on the “JESUITS,” in which, instead of admitting 
with the candour of a generous mind, that such a society is not to be condemned for 
the vices of a few of its members — he attacks them in globo. He repeats the slan- 
ders with which they were attacked by the infidels of Europe ; for it is their glory, 
that infidels have always laboured for their destruction. This is proved by the pri- 
vate correspondence of Voltaire and D’Alembert, in which, plotting the destruction 
of Christianity, these patriarchs of Deism, acknowledged that there was no hope of 
success, unless the Jesuits were first put down. Every base artifice was resorted to, 
to blind the judgment, and rouse the enmity of kings and governments, against the 
society. The Pope who suppressed it, made no charge of immorality against them ; 
but. acted with a view to avert the hurricane of civil persecution, which their enemies 
had excited against them, from every quarter. With reference to their persecution, 
by the Portuguese government, a liberal Protestant says, speaking of tneir college 
in Pernambuco : “ Reader, throw a veil over thy recollection for a little while, and 
forget the cruel , unjust, and unmerited censures thou hast heard against an unof- 
fending order. This palace was once the Jesuits’ College, and originally built by 
those charitable fathers. Ask the aged and respectable inhabitants of Pernambuco, 
and they will tell thee, that the destruction of the Society of Jesuits, was a terrible 
disaster to the public, and its consequence severely felt to the present day.” 

“ When Pombal took the reins of government into his hands, virtue and learning 
beamed within the college walls. Public catechism to the children, and religious 
instruction to all, flowed daily from the mouths of its venerable priests. They were 
loved, revered, and respected throughout the whole town. The illuminating phi- 
losophers of the day had sworn to exterminate Christian knowledge , and the col- 
lege of Pernambuco was doomed to founder in the general storm. To the long- 
lasting sorrow and disgrace of Portugal, the philosophers blinded her king, and 
flattered her prime minister. Pombal was exactly the tool these sappers of every 
public and private virtue wanted. He had the naked sword of power in his own 
hand, and his heart was as hard as flint, tie struck a mortal blow, and the Society 
of Jesuits, throughout the Portuguese dominions, was no more.” — (Wanderings in 
South America, &c. By Charles Waterton, Esq. p. 82.) 

When the Jesuits can point to testimonies like the above, in a hundred Protestant 
authors, the authority of any one of whom is equal, at least, to that of Mr. Breck- 
inridge, they may bear with great equanimity those slanders, propagated against 
them in Europe by the sworn enemies of the name of Christ, and of which, it was 
the singular honour of the society to be the distinguished victims. 

Mr. B. tells us that “ once, guileless Protestants confided their children to the 
training of these men. But it is becoming apparent they will do so no more.’’ This 
unlucky sentence shows us an ulterior motive for the attack on the Jesuits. And 


462 


CONTROVERSY. 


for the consolation of my Reverend opponent., I can assure him, that so far from 
this being the fact, the number of Protestant students in the Jesuits’ college in 
Georgetown, is, of late, much augmented, and daily increasing. Some, and not a 
few, of the most learned and distinguished citizens of our country, 'prefer that Insti- 
tution for the education of their sons. And so long as the public mind is imbued 
with knowledge and discernment, the education imparted in a college of Jesuits will 
be preferred to that which Presbyterian institutions are in the habit of administer- 
ing. Much calumniated as the Jesuits have been, even their enemies have acknow- 
ledged them to be the most learned body of men that ever laboured in the work of 
education. 

We are next introduced to the INQUISITION, on which Mr. B., like his pre- 
decessors, is quite pathetic. Of this I said, “it may have been a good institution- — 
abused .” And I am sure that there is nothing criminal in this reply. Now its 
abuses I condemn as much as Mr. B. himself. But it is manifest he has derived his 
knowledge of the Inquisition, not from any critical, candid investigation of the in- 
stitution, or of the circumstances which must be taken into consideration, to form 
even a just idea of it. Protestants, generally, imbibe their notions of it from dis- 
torted portraits of hostile writers. 

If Mr. B. wishes to be correctly informed, let him consult the history of the In- 
quisition by Count Le Maistre, which may be purchased at Mr. Cummiskey’s book 
store, in Sixth street, above Spruce. Until he gives some proof that he has read 
some author not avowedly hostile, what I have said is sufficient in reply to charges 
founded either on ignorance or misrepresentation. For the information of the 
reader, however, I would remark, that the doctrines of the Catholic religion and the 
tribunal of the Inquisition are essentially distinct, the one from the other — which is 
proved by the fact, that only in two or three countries in the whole Catholic world, 
was the Iquisition ever established. 

But does Mr. B. forget that, as has already been shown, Protestants put to death 
their fellow Protestants, for exercising the mere liberty of conscience'? Does he 
forget the Protestant, as well as Catholic blood, shed by the Presbyterians in Geneva, 
Holland, England, Ireland, Scotland, and New England itself'? Does he forget the 
barbarous acts of the British Parliament and Scotch Assembly against the Catholics, 
during a period of three hundred years ? What were all these but the “Inquisi- 
tion,” under other and more refined names ? Does he forget the “ scavenger’s 
daughter,” and other instruments of torture, used in the Tower of London, by 
Elizabeth and her successors 1 Does he forget that the eighth act of the Presbyte- 
rian Assembly of 1699, directed, “that according to the former acts of assemblies 
and acts of parliament, the names, of Popish priests and Jesuits, and trafficing 
Papists, and of those who have sent their children to Popish colleges and countries, 
be given in to each provincial synod and by them transmitted to the respective ma- 
gistrates, to the effect that they may be proceeded against according to law” What 
is all this but the Inquisition — under other names ? 

But what after all is the object of these questions about the liberty of the press, 
the Jesuits, the Inquisition, &c. &c. ? The object is manifest. Unable to prove 
that “ the Protestant religion is the religion of Christ,” or to answer my arguments 
in proof of the contrary, he endeavors to divert public attention from the real ques- 
tion, and to entrench himself in a position tetter suited to his resources — where he 
hopes to sustain himself, if not by argument, at least, by the prejudices of popular 
feeling. To this popular feeiing he thinks to betray me, by putting me on the de- 
fence of the Jesuits, the Inquisition, and so forth. He seems to have taken the 
hint from the policy of those who said, “ Master, is it lawful to pay tribute to Cae- 
sar or not V* 

Next in order are the “JEWISH TRADITIONS,” of which I said that, “so 
far as they regarded the proof of the Jewish faith, before the coming of Christ, I 
do not reject them.” From this answer, Mr. B. draws the inference, that, “of 
course all their traditions to that time were infallible.” I answer no; but only those 
that appertained to the (t proof of the Jewish faith.” These our Saviour did not 
touch, in his rebuke to the Pharisees, but only those false traditions which did not 
appertain to the “ proof of their faith.” Why was it necessary to change the an- 
swer? If fairly dealt with, it excludes all the false consequences which he deduces 
from his own perversion of it. 

Mr. B. asks, “ is there any evidence of the Pope’s supremacy, before the Council 
of Nice?” He says no — /answer yes. And I refer him to the proofs which I have 
already adduced from the writings of St. Cyprian, Ireuaeus, and other Ante-Nicene 
Fathers, and which he has not denied, nor yet attempted to refute. But another 


463 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

" evidence” is the fact, that in the first century, while some of the Apostles were still 
jiving, a dispute, which arose in thechurchat Corinth, was referred to Pope Clement, 
bishop of Rome, and settled by his authority. The epistle which he addressed to the 
Corinthians on the occasion is still extant. In it he calls the “ divisions which had 
just appeared among them, impious and detestable.” He says, “to Fortunatus’’ 
(who had carried their appeal to him) “we have added four deputies : send them back 
as speedily as possible in peace, that we may be infor med, of the return of union and 
peace among you , for which we pray without ceasing: and that we may be enabled 
to rejoice at the re-establishment of good order among our brethren at Corinth.” 
T. his very appeal, from Corinth to Rome, and this sending of “deputies” to settle the 
dispute, are at once, the recognition and the exercise of the Pope’s supremacy. But 
to this, and the several instances already mentioned, we might add many others still. 
Eusebius tells us, that Irenaeus remonstrated with the Pope, Victor, against the ex- 
communication of the Bishop of — Asia. “ He becomingly also,’’ says Eusebius, 
“ admonishes Victor, not to cut off whole churches of God , who observed the tradi- 
tion of an ancient custom.” (Chap. 24. p. 209-210.) Does not this entreaty acknow- 
ledge his supremacy 1 All this was before the Council of Nice. 

Mr. B. asks, “did the second Council of Pisa decree a Reformation in faith or 
not 1’ I answer, that no Catholic Council — no Council acknowledged by the churchy 
ever decreed a Reformation in faith. 

He asks, “did the Council of Lateran pass an anathema against those rulers, who 
should tax ecclesiastics ?” I reply that it expressly referred to extortions exacted from 
ecclesiastics by petty tyrants, contrary to the immunities secured to them by pre- 
viously existing laws. 

With regard, finally, to “Extreme Unction,” Mr. B. infers that in as much as I 
have not specified the time of its institution, as a sacrament, therefore it was not es- 
tablished at all. I answer, that the fact of its existence is clearly established by the 
the text of St. James, quoted in my last letter. And besides, his reasoning is not 
only illogical, but anti-scriptural; since St. John tells us that “there are also many 
other things which Jesus did,” which are not written. Mr. B. charges me with 
“ contradicting the Council of Trent.” The Council says, “ this sacrament was first 
intimated in Mark vi. 13.” And I said that it was not administered then. Where is 
the contradiction! Neither did an Apostle institute it. But an Apostle, St. James, 
in the fifth chapter of his epistle, attests its existence , and enjoins the use of it. The 
Council does not contradict itself, as Mr. B. says, but he invents a supposition for the 
Council, and draws the pretended contradiction from his own invention, on the one 
side, and from what the Council really did say on the other ; on these he forms his 
“dilemma from which,” he says, “ it is impossible to escape! !” But u if\ says he, 
“this sacrament was instituted, Mark vi. 13. (as it was, if ever) then the Apostles 
administered a sacrament, not being priests; but the Council of Trent says that Bi- 
shops and Priests are the proper ministers of this sacrament.” Whence he concludes, 
that the Council contradicts itself. Now the Council did not say that it was insti- 
tuted or administered in Mark vi. 13, but only “intimated.” Which proves that the 
Council did not err, did not contradict itself, but merely contradicts Mr. Breckinridge. 

Before I pass to the various attempts of Mr. B. to answer the five “stale questions,” - 
which appertain immediately to the topic of discussion, I must be allowed to make a 
few general remarks. The first is, that, from the commencement of the contro- 
versy, instead of preserving unity of subject, in that simple, but lucid order which 
men who write with the love of truth are studious to preserve, he, in open violation, 
of the rules subscribed by himself has continued to crowd letter after letter with 
matter altogether extraneous from the subject. Every succeeding letter from his. 
pen is but a more confused repetition of the same subjects, on which, from the 2d to 
the last, he has continued to ring the changes. If he had, as he was bound to do, 
given but one, or, at most, two subjects in each of his letters, allowing me to do the- 
same, then our letters might have been equally instructive, to both Catholics and Pro- 
testants. But this did not suit Mr. B. When I argued on the Rule of Faith, he 
argued on persecution, purgatory, &c. &c. When I argued against the pretensions 
of the Protestant religion, he argued against the Jesuits and the Inquisition, although 
“ the Rule of Faith,” and “ the Protestant Religion” were the only subjects on. 
which, until they should be exhausted, he was authorized by a mutual engagement , 
to write. What says the world of those who deliberately break their engagements ? 

Again, in upright controversy, no man charges on the cause of his opponent doc- 
trines or principles, which his opponent disclaims, as not belonging to the cause. Yet 
has Mr. B. compelled me again and again to disclaim the same falsely imputed prin- 
ciples and tenets. He has acted throughout, on the assumption, that he knows, the 


464 


CONTROVERSY. 


Catholic religion better than I do, and that he is to be believed in preference ! al- 
though, in so many instances I have convicted him of ignorance respecting it, and of 
the natural consequence of ignorance — misrepresentation. Of his false quotations 
in general, I shall not say any thing. A flagrant instance, is still fresh in the memo- 
ry of the public — in the case of Baronius. 

Finally, he writes a letter, in which he re-asserts objections and arguments that 
have been answered by facts, authorities, and reasoning, in the progress of the dis- 
cussion — asserts that they have not been refuted, and with this letter, 'proposes to close 
the controversy !! Now I have the right to reply , and the reader will perceive that I 
have replied without broaching either new matter, or new arguments. 

Besides the fact that Mr. B. has crowded all the sophistries of all his letters, into 
this last production, to which, it seems, he took it for granted that I would not claim 
the right of replying, he issues in it a recommendation to the public, of many of the 
vilest productions that have ever been written against Catholics and their religion. 
I may mention, as a sample, the pretended “ Secreta Monita” of the Jesuits, a work 
which even the bigoted Leslie Foster, acknowledged, in the British House of Com- 
mons, to be a “forgery,” got up by their enemies. It was worthy of Princeton to 
have published this “forgery,” and of the Presbyterian clergy to recommend this in- 
famous work to the “ American people,” as containing a faithful expose of the secret 
maxims of that calumniated body. If he wished his Protestant readers to be ac- 
quainted with the doctrines of the Catholics, to learn how wicked they are, he should 
have told them to read approved Catholic books, explaining their doctrines, and giv- 
ing reasons for their belief. But. he recommends, instead of these, the “ Secreta 
Monita,” a forgery, and the “ Key to Popery,” whose very title indicates its enmity. 
Sincere minds will see through the object of all this. 

But what has become of T HE Q.UESTION, in the mean while 7 “ Is the Pro- 
testant Religion the Religion of Christ 7” 

1. Mr. B. has never ventured to tell us what the Protestant Religion is 1 — Ex- 
cept that it is “ the Religion of the Reformation.” This is defining a thing by 
itself — and according to this, a man has only to protest against the Catholic church 
— then he is a member of the Protestant Religion ; and, what is the same thing, 
(if we may believe Mr. B.) a member of the Religion of Christ! All this, sim- 
ply by protesting against Popery ! 

2d Question: “Did any society of Christians, previous to Luther, ever pro- 
fess the doctrines of Protestantism in general, or of any sect of it, in particular 1 

Mr. B. in his last letter proceeds to the final settlement of this question. “ You 
will admit,” says he, “ that the doctrines taught by the Apostles, and recorded in 
the Bible, are true Christianity — so do I.” All correct. “ We both allow also,” 
he continues, “ that these doctrines have been according to Christ’s promise to his 
church, held and taught by the true church ever since.” All correct again ; so 
far I could not have framed a better argument on the Catholic side. For since 
the doctrines of Christ have been *• held and taught” at all times by the true 
church , as he acknowledges ; — and, since he cannot find in the w hole world, pre- 
vious to Luther, a society of Christians who “ held and taught” as Protestants do, 
therefore, the claims of Protestantism to be the true religion of Christ, are cut 
off, by his own argument. But let us see the conclusion which he draws from the 
above premises. “ Then,” says he, “ if your doctrines contradict the Bible at 
every step, and if ours harmonize with it, it follows that we are the true church, 
and that our doctrines have been taught and held in every age.” Then, he goes 
on to show that the “ ifs” on which the sophistry of his conclusion turns, are no 
obstacle — “ I have proved — I have proved — I have proved” — as though he had in 
fact “ proved” any thing, except his inability to prove what he had undertaken to 
prove ; viz. “ that the Protestant Religion is the Religion of Christ.” He first 
said that the Waldenses, — then, the Greeks, — then, the Ante-Nicene Fathers 
“held and taught” the doctrines of Protestantism. I leave it to the reader whe- 
ther, in every instance, I have not proved the contrary. At last he retreats to the 
Bible, (just as Unitarians do,) and tells us, that the Protestant doctrines are the 
doctrines of that divine book, (which I deny) therefore they must have been 
“ held and taught ” by the true church, from the commencement, although he can- 
not tell by whom or where ! 

3d Question : “ Whether Christ revealed all the doctrines of 
Protestantism, beginning with Episcopalianism and ending with 


465 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 

Unitarianism.” This remains as it was before his last letter. 
He does not venture to repeat the assertion, that Christ could 
have revealed contradictory doctrines. 

4th Question : “ Whether the Reformation received any new 
ministerial authority, to supply the place of that which the 
church recalled from them, in their excommunication ?” To 
this he replies, that “ if a minister of Christ is deposed for re- 
fusing to sin, the deposition is null and void.” This is not the 
question. The question is, by what new ministerial authority 
did the Reformers create new religions ? For no society of Chris- 
tians, as we have seen, ever “ held and taught” their doctrines 
before. 

This has been acknowledged by the Reformers themselves. 
Luther says expressly, that “for a long time he stood alone.” 
Calvin, in his letter to Melancthon in 1552, says, “we have been 
obliged to separate from the whole world.” This is undenia- 
bly manifest. Whence then, “ standing alone,” excommunicated 
by the church , and “ separated from the whole world” — whence 
their new authority ? It was not from men. If it was from 
God, God would have sealed this new work with the power of 
miracles. Did the the Reformers ever prove by this test, that 
God had sent them ? Erasmus, who was acquainted with them, 
says, “they could not so much as cure a lame horse.” By their 
own admission they separated from the church, and by their 
own doctrine, they are condemned for this crime alone. Calvin 
tells us, that “to separate from the church, is to renounce Jesus 

Christ .” Then, Calvin, himself, must have “ renounced 

Jesus Christ,” having, as he admits, “separated from the 
whole world.” 

The condemnation of Athanasius by the Arians, furnishes no pa- 
rallel to the case of the Reformers. He was deposed by the violence 
of those Heretics, from whom he had received no authority. But 
the Reformers were excommunicated by the very church which had 
ordained them, and joined themselves to no other society. Therefore, 
they had no authority themselves, and consequently could not trans- 
mit it to their successors. 

In treating this question, Mr, B. labours, first, to show that ordi- 
nation and ministerial authority in the Catholic church is, to use his 
favourite expression, a “ figment,” and then he contends that the 
Reformers in their suspension and excommunication, could not be 
deprived of this same ‘ figment,’ and thus proves that Presbyterian 
ministers are something more than mere laymen ! ! On this point I 
give him over to the rigid logic of Drs. Bowden, Cooke, Brittan, 
and others, who, whilst they vindicate Catholic ordination on the 
one side, prove to a demonstration on the other, that Presbyterian 
ordination is a “figment” indeed. “ Where there is no Episcopal 
ordination,” says Dodwell, “there is no ministry ; no sacrament ; 
no church. Men are out of the covenant of Grace , and hope of sal- 
vation .’ 

5th Question. The fifth question appertains as a corollary to the 
solution of the fourth. Since it is manifest, as we have seen, that 
the first Reformers had received no “ new ministerial authority” 

3 N 


466 


CONTROVERSY 


it follows that the original deficiency has not been supplied to their 
successors at any subsequent period. Consequently, the right by 
which the Protestant clergy exercise the ministry, is merely an 
assumption founded on a human origin, but not derived from God, 
by any visible order of derivation. The ordinary mission and au- 
thority were cut off by their defection from the Catholic church ; 
and there were no extraordinary mission and authority ; for these 
are known only by the evidence of miracles, to which the Reform- 
ers, very wisely, never pretended. 

Mr. B. unable to answer, in a satisfactory manner, these five 
questions, is powerful in his criminations against Catholicity. He 
sees nothing but sects in the Catholic church ; yet when I called 
upon him to show so much as two Catholics in the whole world, 
professing a different belief on any article of faith; he could not 
find them. Throughout the universe, Catholics are as united in 
their faith , as if they dwelt under the same roof. The distinction 
between faith, opinions, and mere local customs, has been pointed 
out. 

Towards the close of his letter, he makes an allusion to the “table 
of sins,” and whilst he pretends that no parent should permit his 
child to read it, he seems to forget that there are passages in the 
Bible, which, on his own principle, it is quite as improper for chil- 
drenHo read, or hear, or understand. 

The last flourish of his letter is on the “ effect of the refor- 
mation.” He says, “ we are indebted to the Reformation, under 
God, for the rights of conscience, for civil liberty, for the revival of 
letters, in chief part, and for the circulation of the Bible, for the vir- 
tue and piety of the people, and the eternal salvation of innumerable 
souls.” All this is popular declamation, most of it untrue, and con- 
tradicted by learned Protestants themselves. The “ salvation of 
souls,” ascribed to the Reformation is the only thing worth refuta* 
tion. Mr. Haldane, a Protestant, in his Second Review of the Bri- 
tish and Foreign Bible Society, represents the Protestants, not only 
of Germany, but Sweden, Norway, Finland, Prussia, Hungary, 
Holland and France, as consisting almost entirely of Arians, Soci- 
nians, Neologists, Rationalists, and Deists. Does this, I would ask 
Mr. B., look like “ the salvation of innumerable souls ?” The editor 
of the Presbyterian corroborates the above position by telling us that 
the mother churches of Calvinism in Geneva are sinking into “Athe- 
ism.” The Protestant Brandt, in his History of the Reformation, 
says, in reference to morals. .....that “ vice, persecution, hatred, envy, 

and self-love, have prevailed among them, (the Reformed ;) that every 
body accommodates the word of God to his own prejudices ; and has 
a gospel of his own making .” (Roache’s Abridgement of Brandt, 
vol. i. p. 3.) Does this look like the “ salvation of innumerable 
souls ?” But I have already given the testimony of the Reformers 
themselves to prove that morals deteriorated by the Reform. 

. Mr. B. has repeatedly made reference to those portions of the 
Holy Scripture which Protestants call Apocryphal. Now, in my 
letter No. IS, I showed by unanswered proof and testimony, that 
the objections raised by Protestants to those books, are equally 


IS THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, &c. 


467 


strong against all the deutero-canonical books. Let him take, and 
refute those arguments. 

With regard to the charge which he renews of SUPPRESSING 
THE SECOND COMMANDMENT, (as Protestants divide the 
decalogue) I have simply to reply that it is false and unfounded. 
There is only one copy of the catechism (and that is not in general 
use) in which it is not expressly and fully stated.- He denies that 
it is in the “ catechism of the council of trent,” and calls for 
the page. Let him read page 332, and he will learn the truth of a 
fact which he has denied. But let the candid acknowledgment of 
learned and eminent Protestants reprove the ignorance or malice that 
prefers such a charge. 

Doctor Heber, in his Bampton Lectures, says, “ We ourselves 
are not altogether guiltless of falsely imputing to the Catholics, in 
their public formularies, the systematic omission of that command- 
ment which we make the second in the decalogue This accusa- 

tion has been brought forward by some who ought to have known 
better .” 

Dr. Parr says, “ I should be ashamed of urging against them any 
false accusation of disingenuous omission, or unauthorized arrange- 
ment of the decalogue.” (Dr. Parr’s Character of C. J. Fox, vol. 
ii. p. 129.) 

I have now done — and I submit it to the reader whether my op- 
ponent has not utterly failed to prove either “ the Protestant Rule of 
Faith,” or that “ the Protestant Religion is the Religion of Christ.” 
He has indeed urged against the Catholic church the misrepresenta- 
tions of three hundred years, wielded with all the force which igno- 
rance of, and prejudice against our b"vl doctrines, could impart. 
But what has he done besides ? Even in this, has he ever planted 
his foot in a fixed position , from which he has not been driven by 
the force, not of assertion, but of facts, authorities, and argument ? 
Even in point of literary courtesy and polite language, I do not shrink 
from the candid judgment of the Protestant reader himself. It is 
to be admitted, that when he quoted authorities, which are untrue , 
I said they were “ untrue.” But for this, the blame belongs to him , 
and not to me. For the rest, Rev. Sir, with all good wishes for 
your better knowledge of the holy, but calumniated religion, which 
you have assailed, as well as for your happiness, 

I remain your obedient servant, 


John Hughes. 


468 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 

Philadelphia , September 19 th, 1833. 

To the Rev. John Hughes, 

Sir , — When I accepted your offer of a public controversy, I pro- 
posed to you the alternative of a connected discussion in successive 
volumes, or of a public oral debate. You declined both of these, 
however ; and, after much difficulty and delay, the present plan was 
finally adopted, under a limitation of six months. The reason of 
this limitation was the nature of my present occupation, which 
requires me to be absent from home a greater part of the year. By 
the indulgence of the Board of Education of the Presbyterian church, 
in whose service I am engaged, I was enabled to add two months to 
the six already deyoted to you. These have now expired ; and my 
duty imperatively calls me to leave the city and travel at large through 
the country for several months. 

As I am very solicitous, however, to continue and complete this 
Controversy, I now propose to you a public discussion of the re- 
maining topics, as soon after my return as may be convenient for the 
parties. In this way, and in this alone, we can in a few successive 
days investigate every subject which it may be desirable to discuss. 
I now claim this arrangement, not only as due to me in justice, but 
in the exercise of that choice which you conceded to me in your 
note of August 1st, (See Appendix to Letter No. XXVIII.) where 
you say, “ you will have it in your power to fix the limitation, when 
and where you may deem it .convenient.” 1 now fix it on the Ros- 
trum, before the American people. If you decline this proposal 
in view of the above facts, ii must be considered as the expression 
of a desire to retire from the defence of your cause. 

An early and explicit answer is requested. 

I remain your obedient servant, 

John Breckinridge. 

P. S. You will be so kind as to receive the bearer, the Rev. 
William L. M’Calla, as fully authorized by me to negotiate the pro- 
posals of this letter, and all things connected with * it, or resulting 
from it. J. B. 

Philada. Sept . 21, 1833. 

To the Rev. John Hughes. 

I have received with extreme regret your verbal reply to my letter 
of the 19th inst. in which you wholly decline my proposal to finish 
the pending Controversy in a public oral discussion. 

In existing circumstances, therefore, my letter of the 25th will 
close the Controversy, until my return from the tours incident to my 
office, at the present season of the y6ar. If, however, you desire its 
unbroken continuance, I offer to you as a substitute (according to 
your own suggestion, in view of possible interruptions on my part) 
the Rev. William L. McCalla during my absence. If Providence 
permit my return, as I hope, after some weeks, I shall be prepared, 
and disposed to resume the discussion in such a way as may be 
470 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


469 


agreed upon between us. And I hereby assure you that nothing 
shall hinder me (if God permit) from bringing this whole subject 
before the American people. 

I remain your obedient servant, 

John Breckinridge. 

Philada, Sept . 23 d, 1833. 

To the Rev. John Breckinridge. 

Rev. Sir , — In reply to your letters of the 19th and 21st inst. I 
have to inform you, that I see no reason why we should depart from 
the form and medium of Controversy which we have used hitherto, 
and which w r as agreed upon between us after mature deliberation and 
repeated conferences. It is unnecessary here to state the reasons that 
induced me to prefer conducting the Controversy in the form of 
letters, nor will the public be at a loss to divine your motives for 
now declining that mode, as it must be evident that in an oral discus- 
sion, you would have the opportunity of quoting authorities in a 
manner to suit your own purpose, when it would not be in the power 
of your opponent to detect and expose you, as has been successfully 
done in a variety of instances. It would seem as if you considered 
yourself justified in overturning our rules and regulations in globo , — 
having contrived to evade and violate them in detail, during the pro- 
gress of the Controversy. But, Sir, I am not to be made a party to 
such proceedings. It was through the press you first assailed the 
Catholic Church. Through the press you circulated your memo- 
rable challenge to “ Priests and Bishops.” Through the press I 
have, thus far, successfully exposed your incompetency to defend 
your cause, except by misrepresentations of doctrines, or perver- 
sions of authorities — and through the press I shall continue to sub- 
mit the case to the judgment of a discerning and enlightened public, 
until the final close of the Controversy. If your business carry 
you abroad, you are free to discontinue when you please, and to 
resume when you find it convenient to do so. — But you must not 
deprive me of my right to return the arrow which you shoot — in 
retreating. When you return, you may resume the contest, and I 
shall be prepared to receive you. 

In the mean time, I have to assure you, that I have not sent any 
“ verbal reply” to either of your letters. Yours, &c. 

John Hughes. 

Philadelphia , September 28, 1833. 

To the Rev. John Hughes. 

Sir , — I have received your answer of the 23d, to my communica- 
tion of the 2 1 st; and have also seen your note to the publishers of 
the Presbyterian asserting your purpose to reply to my Letter No. 
34. It is difficult for me to tell you, how painful it is to me, on 
the point of my departure, to see you pursuing so unworthy a course ; 
or to frame an apology for it. As you wrote the first letter in the 
series, so it is clearly my place, as respondent , to write the last. 
Yet you insist on writing the last as well as the first. If it re- 


470 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


quires two of your letters to answer one of mine, then can any one 
be at a loss to draw the inference ? What renders your desperate 
condition still more apparent is, that you seek the exercise of so 
unjust an advantage at the moment of my departure, and not only 
insist on a supernumerary letter, but would deny me the right of re- 
sponding to it, even through a friend — while necessary absence ren- 
ders it impossible for me to do it in person ; while yet you first 
suggested this very arrangement in view of my possible interrup- 
tions ; and while, with the resolution of despair, you refuse to meet 
me on the Rostrum. When you charge me with seeking an oral 
debate that I may shun your examination, and exposure of my 
authorities, you forget that a cart-load of ‘ authorities,’ might attend 
each of us to the stage ; and that this will be the very place to con- 
front and expose false references. I am so accustomed to the lan- 
guage of insult from you, that it now passes me, with no other 
emotion but pity, and regret that I am constrained to sustain a 
Controversy with one who defends his cause at the expense of his 
character. Your praise might now appear almost a reason for self- 
examination ; and while I can appeal to God, and my country, for 
my character, and to your own monuments for the truth of all my 
citations, I shall continue to construe your personal attacks, as the 
last struggles of a system which has ceased to be defended by 
argument and truth. My reasons for proposing a public debate 
were these. — I desired, from the very first, a discussion which could 
be presented in a body, (as in a book) that all our arguments might 
rapidly, and together, be examined and reviewed. But for this you 
proposed to substitute the columns of a daily newspaper ! 

The next best form and the nearest approach to the former, is a 
public debate. This, besides passing before our hearers in a few 
days, the whole matter of controversy, might be speedily fur- 
nished, and then allow me room for other duties which call me much 
abroad. Either of these methods is better suited to both these ends, 
than a protracted newspaper discussion, which may become inter- 
minable, and afford to you the occasion of incessant evasions. On 
the Rostrum I could bring you to the point, and confront you 
before the people, where cowards lose their shelter, sophists their 
veil, and Jesuits their power to dally and deceive. 

Being now, in the providence of God, called away for a season, 
as you insist on still another letter, I must leave you under the care 
of my gallant friend, during my absence. I shall request him to 
do no more than is necessary, in replying to your forthcoming letter, 
if you persist in so unjust an act . 

In closing this communication, I beg you to bear in mind, that 
your fond hope of my “retreat,” cannot be realized, however con- 
soling such an event might be to you, at the present crisis. In the 
existing posture of the discussion, I can scarcely believe that any 
one (much less yourself,) will construe my absence into “ a retreat,” 
especially when our first arrangements were made in view of that ab- 
sence, and when I spontaneously added two months to the six origi- 
nally fixed on as the limit of the Controversy. I hope, however, 
soon to have it in my power to give a practical refutation to so 


CORRESPONDENCE 


471 


uncandid and false a charge. If my life should be contiuued by a 
merciful God, I shall promptly be at hand, prepared to press the 
discussion to its legitimate close, in any form consistent with my 
present mode of life, whether on the Rostrum, or in permanent 
volumes, or in the weekly papers, either with you or without you. 
I remain, yours, &c. 


John Breckinridge. 


y i ! 



I 


* 


V& 


fVI , 











i 







% 







Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 




t 












































/ 














